Ron Paul, With No Georgia Delegates, Still A Presence At GOP Conventions

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

Republicans held conventions across Georgia Saturday as part of a process to select the delegates that cast the votes for the GOP nominee in Tampa this summer. The delegates selected from each county proceed to conventions held by Congressional Districts in April and a State Convention in May to finalize the list of Georgia’s delegates to the National Convention.

While those delegates will be pledged to vote for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum based on last Tuesday’s Presidential Preference Primary results, delegates at the National Convention will also vote on items such as the party platform, committee members, and other items that govern the internal workings of the Republican Party.

In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates ultimately decide who will be the nominee as well. Should the balloting go more than two rounds, it is these delegates who will be Georgia’s voice on who should represent the Republicans in the November elections. They would not be bound to the instructions of the candidate to which they were originally pledged. The selection of these delegates, while somewhat of an inside baseball beauty/popularity contest, is therefore not inconsequential.

It is presumably for this reason that supporters backing the candidacy of forth place finisher Ron Paul engaged in a visible (and audible) presence at the weekend conventions. While Paul received no Georgia delegates, his small but quite dedicated band of followers were at many of the county gatherings across the state. According to reports filed at PeachPundit.com, they seemed to follow a very similar script.

For those unaccustomed to such fine pageantry as is a Republican County convention, let me first explain the day in a nutshell. You gather with other assorted party activists and others who are aware these meetings actually exist and have nothing better to do on a perfectly good Saturday. The location is most often a school cafeteria or another similar location offering institutional grade luxuries with uncomfortable seats and bad acoustics. You are then asked to sit and wait for credentials of everyone present to be accepted, rules to be explained and re-explained, and then a bizarre agenda of arcane parliamentary procedural items before finally voting on the items that were the only reason you were there.

While the entire event could, in theory, take about a half hour, those fighting for control of a convention will routinely gum up the works at every opportunity, hoping that those sympathetic to their cause are dedicated and will stay, while those with anything better to do will eventually grow frustrated and leave. Political conventions are the best way invented to pack 30 minutes of activity into a 6-8 hour day.

This behavior is not unusual during the conventions held in odd numbered years. These are the years when county, district, and state GOP officers are selected. It is a bit more unusual during the conventions held during Presidential nominating years, as the decisions made are much more limited.

But to Paul supporters enduring their quixotic journey, county conventions were an opportunity to possibly catch “the establishment” napping, and they gave it a good old college try on Saturday. The script seemed to involve showing up at the county convention without first having been nominated the month before at precinct meetings, and/or by feigning ignorance of the process. Then, as the meetings began, pulling out a copy of Robert’s Rules Of Order, and begin screaming “Point of Order” to claim control over the agenda with each item. If possible, waste 4 hours or so demanding that the Federal Reserve be abolished, or that we end unconstitutional undeclared foreign wars (none of which were actual agenda items, but how else do you kill 4 hours during a thirty minute meeting?). Then, after feeling the hostility of those who remained to reject such shenanigans, leave the meeting loudly projecting exasperation that you didn’t feel sufficiently welcomed by those for whom you just wasted a perfectly sunny afternoon with your well scripted stunt.

The first column I wrote as a contributor for PeachPundit.com was about this same topic four years ago, when Ron Paul supporters attempted to gain access to the State Convention by presenting pauper’s affidavits in lieu of paying required convention fees. They then complained loudly that they were excluded from an event which they wanted control of but refused to contribute financially to.

I kindly suggested they were a bit whiney and needed to realize that politics ain’t bean bag. If you show up to someone else’s power center and choose to try and take that power from them, do not expect them to smile and hand you the keys.

It seems some of that message was taken to heart. This year, they are at least working the delegate process systematically, if not still to a level of workable perfection. But the whiney-ness is still present. For some reason, those who make no secret that they plan to turn the establishment on their ear, and change the stated policy of the party 180 degress with respect to foreign policy and significantly with regards to tax and economic policy still feign shock when those who represent various levels of status quo do not greet them as liberators. This will never happen.

If your goal is to take power away from someone else, you cannot expect them to be friendly to you as you try. You should not expect a pleasant experience, especially as you make the environment of all involved unpleasant in the process. If you have established an agenda that requires 100% agreement with what you believe in or rejection, then you should also not be shocked when you and your ideas are rejected 100%. All or nothing often gets you nothing, and this is also true of the delegate/convention process.

Many Ron Paul supporters who have actually worked within their local parties have been included in the process. Those who showed up as outsiders with a chip on their shoulder were right to be excluded.

Share this:

304 comments

Man, you really have no idea what’s coming in the next few years, do you?

The “outsiders” are the 40% of the American people who haven’t bothered to show up in our political process because of guys like you, who think this is all just some big farking game. They aren’t the approximately 30% of the Democratic voters or the approximately 30% of the Republican voters who make up that other 60%. They are people who have basically watched their country go down the pan thanks to our political system.

Yeah, ’cause there could logically only be one person on this site, much less the rest of the county, who has reached the point where they’ve decided to put a stop to the system that’s destroyed this country. /sarcasm

That’s another thing. Charlie and others try to paint the number of people who are pissed off as being some fringe group that’ll pass or something. “Oh, it must all be the same person creating all this ruckus.”

Truth is, democrats and republicans make more enemies every day. And there’s a hell of a lot more angry people out there than you wish to acknowledge.

I wasn’t either. I guess now I’ll have to. 🙁 Truthfully it feels like I sold my soul by walking into that convention saturday. That’s not intended as an insult to the rather nice folks at my particular county convention, but it’s an indication of how much I hate politics.

I’m not gonna lie, I’d rather have been at home, but if I had stayed home, I’d have this nagging notion that there was still convention going on down the road from my house where people were deciding on delegates who will get to decide who is going to bother folks like you and me for the next four years. So, yeah, I had to show up. Ignoring them doesn’t quite give them the hint that you want to be left alone, unfortunately.

^^^^ Y’all see this? I’m in agreement with NoTeabagging. ‘People are pissed.’

I’m telling you guys, there’s so many warning signs staring you right in the face. DeKalb was just a start.

I’m just wondering if the democrats are going to have a similar upheaval in their party, but, this might actually be good for republicans, ’cause a little infighting might be what a rather boring GOP needs, if people perceive it to mean that big changes are actually happening among Republicans. Right now, a lot of folks outside the system simply view the republican party as ‘the party that resists change’. That’s fine if you’re sticking to your principles (which, you’ve been losing those battles anyway, but I won’t go too far into that), but ‘resisting change’ is not so fine if it’s when people within the party are trying to retain power merely for the sake of having power—That . . . is a major turn-off, and it’s why a lot of people just don’t vote in our system. There’s lots of those power-hungry types in both parties, all over the country.

The GOP is in a prime position to show people that they have ways of sniffing those power-hungry nuts out of their own party and dealing with them, which might actually go over well with inactive but eligible voters (as previously mentioned, it’s a large group of potential voters that the GOP hasn’t managed to tap into yet—but if they can prove to folks that they are making changes to be the party of accountability, Republicans will probably ‘have it made’ for a while, for sure [why do I feel like I’m giving out next week’s winning lottery numbers for free here?]).

Many of us on the sidelines are just waiting to see which of these two lousy parties is going to stop putting up with it’s internal crap first. Yet some of GOPers on here are like, “Well, y’all Ron Paul folks just need to come on in here and get involved by patiently cleaning up our mess for us so you’ll eventually see things get better, or else you shouldn’t complain.” Of course, then they get upset when Ron Paul folks come in on a Saturday morning and clean up one of the biggest counties in Georgia. Hell, it wasn’t even their responsibility to come in and clean up your mess there; they did you guys a huge favor and I’d be shocked if the GOP membership in DeKalb doesn’t start leading every rate-of-growth seen in other areas of the state.

I mean, from the outside, it looks and sounds bad. It honestly looks like the GOP is just searching for warm bodies to fill the voting booths, which, is why we are where we are, at this point in our nation’s history. If you got something to say, “oh well, you just keep quiet and press that republican button—there, that’s a good boy”. I suppose that’s the name of the game, but keep in mind, the folks who came out on Saturday (folks who Charlie keeps wanting to write off as a fringe, angry group, who, in actuality, are just the beginning of a much broader, angry group of Americans) are getting fed-up with these high-stakes cheerleading competitions.

The Libertarian wing of the GOP is growing and is the younger crowd (18-35) are grabbing a hold of it like nothing else. The younger generation are tired of being sent to old men’s wars, paying into a system (Social Security) that at this point seems will likely not be around when we get to retirement age. Then you add in an overall turn away from social conservatism, and you have a group of Neocons holding onto an overall aging and shrinking majority. Unless the two big wings of the GOP find a way to work together, then I don’t see this bird taking flight.

You’re impatient and you don’t like processes and procedures. Even an imbicile like myself gets that much.

OK, I’ll play along. Suppose Rep. Paul gets himself elected. He would still have Congress and the courts to deal with. Stuff isn’t going to happen instantaneously. What’s going to happen when we wake up sometime in mid-2013, and the Federal Reserve still exists, we still have troops in Afghanistan, and there’s still a federal deficit? Are you going to declare the Constitution irretrevibly broken, march on Congress, and burn the Capitol down?

We had a 70 year old Ron Paul supporter show up for the convention, and [the primaries] were her first time voting, ever. For 52 years, she ain’t had a bit of faith in the system until Ron Paul came along and she decided that this time it might actually be worth a shot.

And that’s not including the number of elderly folks at these conventions who have been in the GOP for their entire lives, involved in the process, trying to do right by their beliefs, and waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting, for government to actually shrink like GOP leadership has been promising them for . . . ever. —I mean, how long are y’all gonna keep stringing those folks along? I actually feel a bit sorry for those folks, because the oldest ones there are usually the cheerful, polite ones who are just happy to see new young people involved in the party. But hell, they took y’alls advice about being patient and haven’t gotten so much as a souvenir cup to show for it.

It ain’t a matter of patience. It’s a matter of getting certain folks the hell out of the way so we can actually get somewhere. I’m trying to give a fair warning to y’all:

Typical ad hominem posturing. Instead of dealing with real issues, you jump to ridiculous what-ifs and even more ridiculous suppositions. Sadly, you might be right on the imbecile part, tho’ I’d never call you that…to your face. BTW, imbecile is spelled with 2 “e”s.

Mary, are you the young lady who almost lurched across the table at me at the Cobb mass precinct meeting when, during our obligatory debate about the various candidates, I dared to suggest that Rep. Paul may just be as corruptible as any other human being?

I’m glad to see people new to the process getting involved. I hope they stick around and get to work within their local parties. They lowered the average age by at least 15 years, and if they will apply the passion they bring for R3voltion within the local party very good things will happen. If they get involved in a positive way, they could will be running the party in a few years.

At the mass precinct meetings and convention in my county we had quite a few new people show up. A few of the newbies were selected as delegates to the upcoming District and/or State Conventions and all of the remainder that wished to be were nominated as alternates. Several became dues paying members of the local party and I don’t think anyone left feeling unwelcome.

I agree. The Ron Paul folks should stay as active, dues paying members within the GOP if they want to change the direction of the conversation in the state and country. I think this is a MUCH better way, rather then going to the libertarian party, who have practically NO power at any level of gov’t anywhere in the country. At the small county convention I went to, there were atleast 2-3 delagetes or alternates who support Ron Paul. All were younger folks and all of them realize our debt is the #1 threat to the future of our country, not other boogeymen like teh gays, illegals, Iran etc.

Oh, give those newbies a few months to actually see how things work. I doubt they’ll remain very involved long-term.

Disclaimer: I am not a RP supporter. However, why in the world should his supporters stay in a GOP that derides them, mocks them, and tries to shut them out at nearly every turn? They’d be better off going Libertarian or forming their own party and trying to compete for that 40% independent vote.

However, if we were able to get the “R” and “D” removed from the names at the polling station – we may have a better shot. This party system is silly and detracts from the real goal, which should be to improve our country. I know people who only vote down party lines – in fact, most people I know only vote down party lines. That is absolutely mindless.

Oh, and we’re a thick skinned lot. For the most part, the people yelling at us are our parents and grandparents, so we’ll keep coming back because we love them just the same.

180 degrees… you know… because the establishment GOP still believes in big government and excess spending. (They just don’t want to pay for it with taxes apparently.) Whereas the newcomers want the limited government that they’ve been led to believe the GOP stands for.

If I believed these folks would stick around and help with local things, they would be welcomed with open arms.

However, many of those who came to our county convention also came to the conventions in 2008, then disappeared when Dr. Paul didn’t win. The few that stayed around were given delegate spots this time around without any hesitation. You see, most of us realize that this process is decided mainly at the ballot box and do not believe that Dr. Paul finished last due to some kind of voter fraud, and as such, would never dream of coming into a group we had no intention of supporting (because many of the ones in our county are founding members of the local Libertarian party) and trying to force the last place candidate on all of us as a nominee as if we were all too stupid to research the candidates and decide for ourselves who we support.

What is most offensive about this is that we who have spent the last four years working in the trenches (in between convention cycles that are the only things those in the RP crowd in our county will attend) are told that we don’t care about America on one hand, but when one of our members pressed the issue after the convention with some RP supporters about being involved in local issues, he got excuses like, “Well, I have a business to run. I don’t have time to come to meetings.” Sorry. Not buying it. Everyone involved in our local party carves out time from running businesses/working, raising families, and being involved in church activities to attend meetings or debates, go door to door, put out yard signs, address envelopes, work fundraisers…the list goes on and on. Until the RP crowd decides to stop insulting us for not supporting their Presidential candidate and many of them roll up their sleeves and get in the trenches with us in between Presidential convention cycles, they can expect this kind of reception. Many of us aren’t really that far apart in a lot of what we believe, but it is hard to convince a a lot of RP supporters that federal politics are a very, very minor portion of what concerns the local party, and really not a large part of the work that goes on for most of us. I care very little which candidate my fellow workers in our local GOP supported for President. We have state house and senate elections to worry about, as well as contested county elections that are shaping up.

Besides, what happens when the go0d doctor goes on to his reward one day? Will they do a “Weekend at Bernies” and drag him around anyway, or will the attention be turned to his son?

“as if we were all too stupid to research the candidates and decide for ourselves who we support”

In your research, what did you find to be your disagreements with Dr. Paul?

And, I don’t think we’re insulting you for not supporting him; rather, we’re trying to understand why you don’t support him. We want to be able to educate you and others on why most objections to him are unfounded.

News Flash! Iran Worries That US May Be Close to Acquiring Their 8,500th Nuke! More at 11.

Plus, there are far more dangerous countries with nuclear weapons on the heads of intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed at America – you’re just worried about Iran because it is in the benefit of the mainstream media and the federal government for you to worry about Iran. First, there is no proof they have a nuke; second, there is no proof they could deliver a nuke; third, everyone else in the world has nukes! We have the most!

Surely you’re not worried because some nut job says he wants to wipe Israel from the pages of time (which is the correct translation of what he said). A guy who is really only the 14th highest ranking person in the country – behind the ayatollah and the 12 members of the security council. That would be like our secretary of agriculture saying he wanted to wipe Canada from the pages of time – the rest of the world would disregard him as a nut.

Plus, if we hadn’t been toying with governments over there since the 50s when we helped the people overthrow the original ayatollah with the shah, we might not be in this mess. We’ve dug ourselves a hole, and your position is basically, “let’s dig our way out!”

So, tell me, specifically, if you would, why are you so concerned about Iran having a nuke? Are you as concerned about the Russian, Chinese, North Korean, et al nukes pointed at our backyard? Why is Iran so important to you? I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that you aren’t really sure.

And if anything, the nuclear state we need to be most worried about right now is Pakistan. If the government there falls, we could have a loose-nuke situation 1000 times worse than the uncertainty and confusion following the breakup of the Soviet Union (and the resulting problem of having numerous nuclear weapons now in the hands of the various former republics). THAT is an immediate problem. Iran is and should be a backburner issue right now.

Maybe someone can explain it to me, but I simply don’t understand why hardcore GOPe’ers are sooooo worried about Iran, which *might* get try and get a nuclear weapon, when the rouge Islamic state(ie Pakistan), which is largely controlled by a shady military already HAS a nuclear weapon. It is well known that elements of the shady military ALREADY planned out assults on American targets, while Iran *may* try to do so.

I believe it to be a function of where people get their news and what they are expected to think.

The mainstream media paints Iran as the greatest threat, their friends and family think Iran is the greatest threat; therefore, Iran must be the greatest threat.

Sensationalized sound bites sell more minutes of eyeballs than thorough analysis. The goal of some of my comments is for people to want to disprove me, so they will go and research a topic. When they do, they’ll see that, more often than not, they’re “positions” are merely restatements of what they’ve been told their positions should be.

Given enough time and information – I genuinely believe that every person in America would admit that Dr. Paul would be the best thing for this country. The problem is that we live hectic lives and don’t really have time to spend hours reading about Iran’s nuclear program and governmental structure. It is easier to just vote for Newt because he’s one of us and the most intellectual of the remaining candidates, which he is. The problem with him is that he knows it.

Nicholas, Nicholas, Nicholas. Dear Naive One, no matter how much open-minded, unbiased truth seeking Americans might do, and even if they all came to your same conclusion “that Dr. Paul would be the best thing for this country,” those that prefer greed & power or don’t want to go thru the pains of changing “the way it’s always been done” will never leave the Dark Side.

They won’t lob one across the Atlantic, but it’s possible to put one in a tug boat and sail it up the Hudson…or into Savannah. Also, most of the other nut jobs with nukes don’t have a religion where they think if they die battle, they will go to heaven and have a harem waiting on them.

Your lack of reasoned alarm is frightening, but I guess what the cult leader thinks must be right?

Its members are apologists and make excuses when presented with facts.

The fact is that Ron Paul ran a newsletter which posted blatantly racist commentary. Yet the Cult Of Personality Apologists do not demand that Ron Paul get to the bottom of it and answer the simple question:

“You say you didn’t write or edit the “Ron Paul Newsletter”, Dr. Paul, even though by all accounts you were heavily involved in its creation and publication. If not, who specifically wrote those items? After all, you cashed about a million dollars of checks you received off the newsletter. And I withhold support until you specifically answer this simple question.”

Yet the COPAs refuse to demand answers, accepting the COPA answer that Eddie Murphy so famously once used … “It wasn’t me.”

Then the COPAs scream that anyone raising this valid, logical point is accusing Ron Paul of being a racist, and that he couldn’t have possibly known, and that there were many writers, and how can Ron Paul be expected to answer such hard questions, and, and, and, and, and … COPA.

Actually no one said Ron Paul is a racist. I am saying that he is covering up the truth of what happened because it politically benefits him to do so. And it seems likely to me that Paul simply does not want his staff contradicting him about his involvement when he throws them under the bus, as they have already done.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

“I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written,’’ Paul said.

Who do you think is lying, Nicholas? And who has the most to gain by being untruthful?

It seems you’re the president of your organization. As president, when one of your employees does something incorrectly, do you throw them under the bus?

A leader knows that you share the praise but take all the criticism.

To be honest, I don’t know who wrote the bigoted comments. As a teen, I was quick to fight someone if they used the N word in my presence. Since I was in 5th grade, my best friend has been a black guy, and I still get agitated when I hear bigots spout their hate (fear?) whether he’s around or not. I’ve shown him the things in the newsletter, and we’ve discussed them (he’s a full-fledged Democrat, if that matters). At this point, 30 years later, what do we really expect?

You demand that he tell you the story. But, why? It was either one of two scenarios.

1) It was someone on his staff. That person denies it – RP takes responsibility. Nothing changes.
2) It was Dr. Paul. Through the years, his actions have spoken louder than his words with regards to race relations. He clearly is not a racist. Nothing changes.

How many YEARS passed between the racist (ok bigoted, just for you) statements that were printed and the checks that were cashed?

Can you find the words sorry, sorrow, regret, wrong or anything similar to them in his apology?

Fact check: Someone has a newsletter with their name on it, making racist statements, collecting money from them. Have their actions spoken louder than their words, proving that they are, in fact, a racist? I’d say yes.

Yes, Nicholas, I am the President of my organization (business, you refer to). And yes, if anyone here published the kind of commentary found on the Ron Paul Newsletter, they would be fired. Same day. It wouldn’t be me throwing them under the bus, they would have thrown themselves under the bus.

Ron Paul should come clean and tell us what happened, not cover it up. Otherwise, it is a reasonable to conclude that his secretary was truthful when she said he edited it — and that he just doesn’t want to be contradicted by coming clean now.

It’s all he can come up with is the beaten old Racist news letters! lol. Come on Mark. You can do better than that. That nonsense is over 20+ years old. RP says he takes responsibility for them but didn’t write those articles. My perception of deeming someone a full blown racist, worthy of ruining his entire reputation, there would have to be video or voting record if that politician was such a racist. I mean, he’s been in and out of Politics for almost 30 years now?
Find me a video of him using the language in that newsletter and I’ll donate $20 to your favorite charity.
Next on your RP hit list will be Foreign Policy I’m sure.

As a member of the Cult Of Personality Apologists, Jimmie did exactly what I said he would do:

I wrote, above, “Then the COPAs scream that anyone raising this valid, logical point is accusing Ron Paul of being a racist, and that he couldn’t have possibly known, and that there were many writers, and how can Ron Paul be expected to answer such hard questions, and, and, and, and, and … COPA.”

Please answer the question, Jimmie, since Ron Paul refuses to.

Who, specifically, wrote the racist diatribes? They were overtly and transparently racist comments, and you have read them.

1. You do agree that they were racist comments, don’t you Jimmie?
2. Who wrote them? Ron Paul refuses to say, and only says that he refuses to look into it.

I’d submit that any white person from the south has an email or letter somewhere that they don’t want dug up. My best friend’s father wouldn’t let him go to the North Georgia mountains with my family because of a certain sign saying for a certain racial epithet to “Keep Out”. I dare you to find a southern white man over 40 who has never, ever, not ever said or done something racially insensitive. For some reasons, you generations before me felt that the amount of melanin in a persons skin somehow affected their character – a logic I’ve never quite grasped.

I don’t know any of you, but I don’t think I would be too far off base to suggest that there may be some bigotry in your pasts, especially if you were born in this state and your family is from this state. And, by the way, there is bigotry in MY past that I’ve had to overcome, so I’m not trying to say I’m any different. My friend and I are able to laugh about it now, but it was a real problem when we were children. Try explaining to a little boy that his friend can’t come because his dad is scared for him. Umm, then why aren’t YOU scared, dad?!? Well, we’re just different. No, we’re not. Well, some people think we are. Bigotry runs deep across the south, and I defy you to deny it.

Oh, and I’ll answer your questions.
1. Maybe I have missed some of the comments, but from what I’ve read, no they are not racist comments. For the definition of racism, see above. They are bigoted and prejudiced, but not racist.
2. Assume Ron Paul wrote them. What does that change? He’s already said he takes responsibility for the contents of the newsletters, and he has apologized for the contents. He was president of the company that created the newsletter, so the buck stopped with him. Okay, now what? Shall we throw tomatoes at him in the street? But, there is completely plausible deniability – only the writer and God know the truth, unless you have some evidence that you haven’t shared with the nation.

So let me get this straight, Grammer and Mark, Ron Paul is a racist b/c he *may* have written some newsletter 30++ years ago. But Santorum and Gingrich have repeated and recently called out the black community(to majority white crowds) about welfare and food stamps usage, while COMPLETELY ignoring poor whites(ie former southern Dems and current cultural conservative Repubs.) who also disproportionately use those gov’t benifits. Thats no big deal, right guys.

And as I predicted: you would refuse to answer the question I raised above. And you managed to throw out every dodge I predicted you’d make, as well.

Re-read what I predicted you would say, including this prediction, “Then the Cult of Personality Apologists (“COPAs”) scream that anyone raising this valid, logical point is accusing Ron Paul of being a racist…”

No. Yet you dodged the question: Since Ron Paul refuses to identify them, who wrote the racist material?

Do “they” exist? Would “they” contradict Ron Paul’s assertions that he had nothing to do with it? Why won’t Ron Paul answer the question of who wrote it?

Thank you, KD, for stepping forward as the second example of “Please elaborate on ‘what is a Cult of Personality?” (originally asked by Nicolas T Johnson, above, and answered by both of you by example).

KD, I once again restate that I did not say he was a racist. He denies that the comments were his, and condemns them. The scenario he draws seems implausible, but not impossible — that he was a poor manager who didn’t even proof blatantly racist material going out under his name.

However, I am stating that he is not telling the truth about how the racist material appeared under his name.

Paul knows what happened, though. And here’s the real reason he won’t get to the bottom of it: his own staff will contradict him.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

“I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written,’’ Paul said.

Who do you think is lying? Who benefits — the politician, or an unknown secretary from his company from years ago –who still supports him?

It is important not just to me, but for all Americans, including you, that we have Presidential candidates who are honest. He is simply not being honest. If you wish to hold him to a lower standard, that is your decision.

Ron Paul should come clean and tell us what happened, not cover it up. Otherwise, it is a reasonable to conclude that his secretary was truthful when she said he edited it — and that he just doesn’t want to be contradicted by coming clean now.

There isn’t any question of if Congressman Paul made money off of racist comments in the newsletter with his name on it, and took decades to SORT OF apologize.

Show me footage of where Speaker Gingrich talked about black people and black people only while ignoring white people. He said President Obama was the food stamp President because more people are on food stamps than ever before. He stated that he wanted to be the jobs President.

I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to with Sen. Santorum.

However, even if it were true, two (Newt and Santorum) wrongs wouldn’t make a right and Paul would still be a racist, thus forcing me to support Gov. Romney.

Seriously Mark, Your smarter then that to be making absurd assumptions like that. If you have too much time on your hand, you can go back and read my posts from the last 15+ months that I’ve been commenting on here and you’ll see that I’m most definately NOT a Paulite. Also you still didn’t explain why your not sooooo offended at clear shows of race baiting (ie southern strat.) from certain GOP candidates.

KD, I stand corrected on my understanding of your intent of your comment. I take you at face value that you weren’t a Paulite. You are correct that I drew that conclusion. Sorry about that–

The purpose of my points here are not about other candidates, this is a conversation about Paul. I’d happily discuss others in a different place, but the purpose of my comments here are to answer “what is a cult of personality apologist?”

I’ve seen Paul supporters defend and dodge responding to the overtly racist statements made by Ron Paul’s newsletter. Comments like this one:

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” –Ron Paul Newsletter

I find it amusing witnessing folks who claim to be free thinkers attempt to dance around these and other facts.

Nicolas, any primitive search of Google will answer your question of “what’s so racist about those newsletters, anyway? I mean, white people just say stuff.”

How about this one? Is this blatantly racist? I say yes. Do you?

Ron Paul 1996, when asked about his newsletter: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

First, you spelled my name wrong, which a good lobbyist or campaign strategist would probably avoid.

Second, I’ll respond to your drivel in line, so it will be easier for you to follow. -By the way, I don’t think this snarky tone suits me, but since you want to travel that path, I’ll walk with you.-

“A cult of personality is simple to identify.”
If it is so easy to identify, why are you misusing it? People like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il used cult of personality to instill in their subjects a sense of awe and adoration. The fact that you use it to describe Paul and his supporters is either out of ignorance or vengeance – either case is disheartening.

“Its members are apologists and make excuses when presented with facts.”
You’ve presented me with no facts. There is nothing new to what you’re saying here. You have no smoking gun. We are left with the same speculative facts that we’ve had since this story broke in 08. The fact is some bigoted commentary was in his newsletter, he had several writers on staff, and several freelance writers at the time. If he says he doesn’t know who wrote it, we can only take him at his word. How in the world is he supposed to figure it out now – 30 years later?!? We’re not apologists – Ron Paul is. He apologized for the comments because they occurred in a newsletter with his name emblazoned on the masthead. Would you rather he slide through time and edit the piece? What do you expect to happen?

“The fact is that Ron Paul ran a newsletter which posted blatantly racist commentary. Yet the Cult Of Personality Apologists do not demand that Ron Paul get to the bottom of it and answer the simple question:”
Again, I think you’re definition of racist needs work. The comments were bigoted and prejudiced, but racist may be a bit of a stretch.

““You say you didn’t write or edit the “Ron Paul Newsletter”, Dr. Paul, even though by all accounts you were heavily involved in its creation and publication. If not, who specifically wrote those items? After all, you cashed about a million dollars of checks you received off the newsletter. And I withhold support until you specifically answer this simple question.””
Again, how would you like him to find the answers to these questions? I wouldn’t withhold support for that! Why would I? The man says a couple key things: 1) he didn’t write them, 2) he doesn’t know who wrote them, and 3) those aren’t his feelings. What reason to I have to think he is lying? He’s been the most honest politician I’ve ever witnessed.

“Yet the COPAs refuse to demand answers, accepting the COPA answer that Eddie Murphy so famously once used … “It wasn’t me.””
Actually, he said that because he was the president of the company that wrote them that he would take responsibility, that anything someone who worked for him did, he did by default. What more could you possibly want?

“Then the COPAs scream that anyone raising this valid, logical point is accusing Ron Paul of being a racist, and that he couldn’t have possibly known, and that there were many writers, and how can Ron Paul be expected to answer such hard questions, and, and, and, and, and … COPA.”
Umm, you said that the comments were racist – the assumption is that you’re labeling the writer of those comments racists, as well. I don’t think that is too far off base. If you’re not, great! So, what’s the problem? He has answered the questions, ad nauseum. Go do your primitive Google search to see.

Although… I don’t really think you care about what he wrote or whether or not the comments were racist. I think you are heavily invested in the way the GOP currently operates, so you’ll attempt to distort the issues and cast doubt where none is merited. You can continue this debate if you wish, but you’ll likely only succeed in making yourself look more foolish and desperate.

Yes, Nicholas, you have correctly named a couple of people who enjoy a cult of personality, support blindly provided regardless of facts. And Ron Paul has many people who are of like behavior: presented with facts, they change the subject, as you have attempted to do. I find it amusing. 😉

You then claim that no facts have been presented. Except, apparently, that I presented the fact that those pesky quotes appeared in his newsletter, the pesky quotes by Paul saying he didn’t see the racist comments attributed to him by his newsletter “until 10 years later;” and those pesky quotes from his secretary saying he edited the publication.

Nicholas then writes, “Again, I think you’re definition of racist needs work. The comments were bigoted and prejudiced, but racist may be a bit of a stretch.”

So this Ron Paul quote isn’t racist? ““Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” Or this? ““Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Uh huh.

I continue to ask you, NicholasT. Why won’t Ron Paul come clean over who wrote and edited those racist statements if he didn’t do it? Seems he’s pretty concerned about being contradicted by multiple people on his staff.

“Ron Paul has many people who are of like behavior: presented with facts, they change the subject, as you have attempted to do. I find it amusing.”

You could change “Ron Paul” to “Insert Candidate Name Here”. Are you really trying to pretend the purpose of a campaign is not to create a pseudo-celebrity out of a nobody. I mean, really, where in the world did Rick Santorum come from?

“You then claim that no facts have been presented.”

You’ve presented no facts. You’ve simply restated facts that were brought up years ago. If you have something new, please share. Those facts have been discussed plenty. You read what you wanted to read in my comment.

“So this Ron Paul quote isn’t racist?”

You have to be a smart fella to be running campaigns for 20 years, but you keep missing the point here. Typically, “racist” is used as a noun to describe a person who exhibits racism. You keep using it as an adjective, which is only a recent distortion of the original word. The comments are bigoted and prejudiced, which I’ve said several times. But, no, the comments are not humans who believe in the genetic superiority of one race over another. Oh, and your question presumes that he wrote them, which may or may not be the case.

“Why won’t Ron Paul come clean over who wrote and edited those racist statements if he didn’t do it?”

It wouldn’t change anything. For the sake of argument, I assume that he wrote them, and I despise bigots and racists. However, he has apologized, and I’ve done enough research to know that the people in his community that know him best don’t believe he is a racist. I’m not sure what else you expect of him.

I do question authority every chance I get, and it seems to be you doing the amusing dance trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

You’re not helping yourself or what you want to accomplish. To assert that questioning authority is “your thing” isn’t going to get you the results you want. Do you want to just argue for the sake of hearing yourself or do you want to work with those with the power to help you?

Why in the world would you get in a urinal match (ha) with someone who’s been helping people get in office for over 20 years? Who has front page posting ability and can help you get your message to thousands of people with the click of a mouse? Are you thinking this through??

Pick the comment that sounds like it came from an adult with the intention of productively working with others:

A) First, you spelled my name wrong, which a good lobbyist or campaign strategist would probably avoid.

B) Second, I’ll respond to your drivel in line, so it will be easier for you to follow.

C) Not the pandering conservatives that lead our party, but the true conservatives. Just ask me what I mean, I’d be happy to tell you how most people who call themselves conservatives are really whacked out Republicans.

WHY are you trying to encourage the wagons to circle up around you? Politics aside – it’s the South. You went to high school at Sprayberry, so you know should know there’s a social art to getting people to help you get what you want. Erupting on PP is not going to help you win friends and influence people.

You’re an engineer who speaks four languages. No one here questions whether or not you’re smart or informed. We want your intelligence working on our side, which is against Obama. Your degree from MIT is respected. Your entrepreneurial spirit with your IT consulting company is certainly respected. Your arguing for the sake of arguing is not.

I mentioned that being snarky didn’t feel quite right; however, that is how he addressed me. I simply assumed Mark would appreciate my response more, if I responded in kind.

You’re right, though – chillaxation is in order. But, I’d like that to be a two way street.

Mark and I have taken up this conversation off line, though, and I look forward to meeting and learning more about him. I’m not the enemy here, and I understand that the GOP regulars aren’t either. There has to be a mutual respect between the two camps, if we are to unite; I can appreciate everyone’s hard work through the decades. But, we demand to be respected, as well.

In the future, I’ll keep my tone a bit more sedate. Some people just like a good debate, and I think Mark and I were having one. If it were in a bar, the bartender would have asked us to go outside – not because there was any bad blood, but because both of us are getting loud and passionate. Some of the most productive meetings I’ve ever been in have ended with people yelling, slamming their fists on the desk, and storming out. Conflict is good.

Point taken, though. I’m really only here because these RP posts needed a voice from our side. I typically shy away from commenting on blogs, because it can be a time consuming exercise.

Plus, if I didn’t show up, you all would have had the dreaded echo chamber Mark spoke about.

Bonus points, however, for digging up my dirt – I feel all naked now. 🙂

You guys seem to be a good lot, and I’d wager we’d have some good laughs in a social setting. At me for supporting your crazy uncle Ronnie, and at you for chasing the boogeyman across the middle east. In the end, I think we all want the same thing – to leave a better country than we came into – and, I think, together we can move mountains.

I’ve softened my G+ info a bit to make it less inflammatory. It still stings, but I wanted to point out that I don’t mean everyone in the GOP – just those to which the statement applies, which, I fear, is the plurality.

“Not the pandering Neo-Conservatives that currently make up most of the leadership our party, but the true Conservatives. Just ask me what I mean, I’d be happy to tell you how most people who call themselves Conservatives are really just warmongering, morality legislating, big business bailout, crony capitalism Liberals.”

USA Today: “An article in Reason magazine said the newsletter company had income of more than $900,000 in 1993, citing tax documents.”

“The newsletters provided Paul with income as late as 1997, when he received as much as $200 in dividends, according to his 1998 congressional financial disclosure form. That form valued the newsletter company at between $100,000 and $250,000.”

Even in its wind-down phase, Paul himself reveals the market value of the company at up to a quarter million dollars.

That was years after his newsletters were big and in their heyday.

And let’s not forget this quoted gem, spoken by his former company secretary: “It was his Newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. … He would proof it,’’ former company secretary Renae Hathway told the Post.”

Now, Maryg2g, why won’t Ron Paul just tell us who wrote it? Is it because he/she will directly contradict Ron Paul? After all, Lew Rockwell explicitly denies writing it. His own staff says he actively edited it. Who’s lying here? Multiple members of his staff or Ron Paul?

“Ron Paul wrote it.” “Aha! So he’s a racist.” “No, he said some stuff to pander to his readers.” “Okay, so, he’s a panderer.” “Well, he was, I suppose, but there is no indication he is now.”

I really don’t see where this goes. What is it that you’re trying to accomplish or prove? Are you genuinely trying to paint him as a racist? Remember, he probably has plenty of black and latino families back in Texas that will admit to him giving them free services when they were too poor to pay for them. What is your end game here?

At this point, I’m just curious how much you’ll reveal – I fully believe that you’re just trying to disparage him for your own benefit.

In the former, he is not a man I would support (not a man at all, really); in the latter, I could only support him after he acknowledged and apologized for the action, and even then, only if I could verify that he wasn’t actually a racist.

Ron Paul is a non-electable rabble rouser. He spouts nonsense on foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, the military, and women’s concerns and you eat it all up with a spoon. His signs litter the countryside worse than Mormon missionaries.
Wake up and smell the reality.

Or you could form your own party, take as much of that 40% as you can (plus any of the 60% from the D&R party you can lure away), and make the Dems and Republicans have to compromise with you in order to get anything done on the Hill.

A strong third party option is the best remedy for the stale platforms of the GOP and Dems. The GOP may be your home, but you need to realize that the GOP leadership will never let you people take the wheel, no matter how much you try to work from the inside. Your best bet is to leave. The GOP didn’t get the message the first time around with Ross Perot. If anything, Dr. Paul should run as a third party and intentionally sink Romney. See if twice is enough to make the GOP change its ways.

Its ok. We are actually more organized than most County GOP groups. Quite possibly have more numbers that are willing to get “involved” in the GOP party. You won’t be able to Chair bully anyone then. The great thing about it is, when we do gain the momentum we expect to, we will be open to anyone that wants to be a part of it. You see, we aren’t in it for the Prestige, the Power, and the “Money” that most of the seated politicians are in it for. I do what I do for free. I’m guessing most of the 1000’s that showed up yesterday would too. This article is Classic (modern) GOP Neo-Con ignorant rant. That “visible (and audible) presence at the weekend conventions” you heard yesterday was the sound of Liberty, my friend. Get used to it!

I’d only add that I will vote for Ron Paul exactly because he doesn’t really care to be President. He isn’t looking for money – he’s pledged to take a $40k per year salary. He doesn’t want the power – he thinks the Washington power should be distributed to the states.

In this primary, I wouldn’t vote for any of the other three precisely because they want it so very badly, and because of the palms they’ll have to grease to thank them for getting them there.

Jimmie, more power to you if you really muster the support after Ron Paul is no longer a factor. These rants all sound very familiar, because we were “warned” before that we were about to be overwhelmed by your momentum and enthusiasm.

2 legitimate RP supporters stayed. The third has major mental problems (I am not joking about this) so he doesn’t count as helping.

Look, our county party is conservative, and we like new people to come and actually do work. Just coming in and telling people we aren’t conservative and don’t understand liberty is ridiculous. That is what happened in 2008 and 2012, same faces, same narrative, same plan.

We had a meeting with several candidates in attendance in between the two conventions. Not one Ron Paul supporter bothered to come to pretend they were interested in being involved. My family was at every meeting.

The rants ring hollow this time. Only time will tell if you are serious.

And, even if we don’t, he’s lit a fire in the bellies of people that won’t soon be squashed. We’ve matured a bit since 08, and we’re ready to take a more serious role.

I have a genuine question that I hope you’ll answer – and I’m only asking because I’ve seen what you said here repeated many times. You say you’re conservative and that you understand liberty, but I have my doubts. I don’t see how you could support any of the other three candidates and know the meaning of those words. My question is this – what is conservative about any of the other three candidates? I mean really conservative. Or, which candidate has suggested a policy that would restore your liberty, in any significant way?

The three we have left are really two sides to the same coin – their methods may be different, but their goals are the same: global collectivism. Newt, Mitt, and Rick will all, guaranteed, expand the size and scope of the Imperial Federal Government. They will continue to wage wars that have no end against phantom boogeymen. They will continue to promote subsidies and lobbyists. They will continue to tell us all not to look as Bernake manipulates the economy with his hand on the spigot of dollar bills.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why more people to realize that Dr. Paul is the only candidate that doesn’t just give lip service to the Constitution, or your freedom, or economic independence, or the strongest military on the planet.

If you’re engaged enough, could you please explain to me what people don’t like about Dr. Paul? I could write a book about what turns me off from the other candidates, but other than “he’s old” or “I disagree with his foreign policy”, I haven’t heard anything substantive from anyone. One guy told me today that he was too short.

Here’s the problem with Paul and the Paulistas. You claim he is the only candidate who understands the Constitution and can take us back to the original intent. Well, if that was the case you’d realize your not going to have a Congressional majority willing to end the Fed, to withdraw our military from Korea and Germany, and your not going to have a sufficient Congressional majority to end most Federal agencies in 8 years. And the Constitution requires that to make significant changes, unless your going to exercise the very kind of Executive power you despise with regards to the Bush and Obama regimes. Paul has not passed one piece of significant legislation because he is not a leader and he cannot sway people to his side, its not going to get easier as President, its going to be much harder. The reality is, and you can call me a RINO or an establishment Republican, but it took us years to get to this grossly large and inefficient government and no one President is going to be able to overturn it all in 4 or 8 years. There are too many entrenched interests. It will be a slow, drawn out battle and we have to convince the people of the value of our ideals over time. Paul may appeal to a narrow segment of independents, but by your(the Paulistas) own admission the media has largely ignored him, so most people don’t really comprehend the full extent of his ideas. Once they do, it will be a shock to them and you will face the kind of resistance you clearly never expect, we’ve seen it already in the House with the current Congress. And Paul will not be able to sit on his hands and play stubborn like so many of his supporters suggest, because if he does, the economy will tank and there will be a political cataclysm unlike any seen in this country. My way or the highway only works with dictators and that usually ends in revolution.

As a last note, I will say that folks like me, and there are quite a few, object to Paul’s isolationist foreign policy. I believe the United States must be a leader in the world and a defender of freedom. I believe we have been blessed and must take up the call of those oppressed the world over, all humans deserve liberty and as Reagan said, we should be a shining city on a hill to all the world, we are not special because we were born here, we are special because we have had people in the past who stood for liberty and gave their blood for our freedom. I object to Ron Paul’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, Korea, and Germany. I believe we need these bases as forward operating posts from which to ensure the freedom of the seas and our strategic interests (allies, energy supplies, etc.). I believe we should stand up to tyrannical regimes in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia. We should be an advocate for the oppressed everywhere, and we should maintain a strong military, forwardly deployed in friendly countries, as a deterrent to would-be aggressors. We should make clear to those who threaten freedom that we will use our military might to defend the weak and to protect our allies, while securing our own national interests. The US did not bring 9/11 on ourselves, we stood for freedom, much as the Paulista’s claim to be doing now. We cannot allow Iran, a dysfunctional, theocratic regime, to have nuclear weapons, as it would threaten the safety and security, and freedom, of the world. We live in an interconnected world, there is no going back to the days when our oceans protected us from foreign upheaval, we learned that lesson in WWII.

Good rant, but waste of time. Congressman Paul won’t get 10% of the delegates. The question is: will these self proclaimed liberty lovers take their ball and go home, or work to elect someone who will repeal Obamacare?

Hah! Just noticed the 10% of the delegates point – I assume you’re assuming one of the candidates will receive 1144 delegates prior to the convention.

If not, I’d point out that Georgia was quite tame compared to many other states at the county conventions. This is a heavily Newt state, but elsewhere, Dr. Paul is a rockstar. Have you seen the 2500+ people packing college auditoriums?

After the first ballot, I’d say the numbers for Paul at an open convention would be more like 40 – 45%. After the second, he may have the nomination.

We will not take our ball and go home – IF – the eventual nominee promises to restore our personal liberty and decrease the size of the Imperial Federal Government. Which do you think will do that?

I’ve been giving this issue more thought, and there are only 3 legitimate scenarios that I could possibly envision playing out in November – 2 of them have RP as president.

1) Ron Paul wins the nomination from the GOP after the open convention, then wins in November. This is probably the least likely of the three.
2) Paul loses the nomination from the GOP, so he runs 3rd party. His supporters will, by and large, vote on principle and not on party, plus he’ll garner the support of plenty of Democrats who are sick of Obama, plus he has the best ground game of any candidate. He makes modern history and wins as a third party candidate.
3) Mittens gets the nomination, Paul gracefully bows out and goes home to Texas, and Mittens loses to Obama in November because the RP supporters are dejected that liberty lost to special interests and big government spenders.

If the GOP doesn’t understand the need to make sure the RP supporters don’t go anywhere, hopefully, this will information will help. We must unite the party before the convention and establish policies and principles that will appeal to RP supporters.

My thoughts are is that you incredibly delusional if you think Ron Paul can win as a third party candidate. Your delusion makes it almost impossible to carry on a rational conversation with you. My replies are not just for your eyes from now on, but to point out how delusional cult members can be.

Doug, you big delusional teddy bear, may I remind you that the GAGOP members on this site have stated numerous times that they welcome people with differing views? After checking both of the concurrent Ron Paul threads, I didn’t see where you personally extended that cup o’ kindness, so I don’t think anyone would expect you to honor any such common courtesy.

But, to quote someone on this forum who was offering advice to another poster, “throwing a tantrum and berating others who don’t agree with you will not get you the outcome you want.” To further quote her, “Pick the comment that sounds like it came from an adult with the intention of productively working with others:”

1) The second biggest reason [most people can’t stand Ron Paul] is that many of his cult members are obnoxious.
2) Your delusion makes it almost impossible to carry on a rational conversation with you. My replies are…to point out how delusional cult members can be.
3) …some of these cult members are taxing.
4) Ronulan Paulbots

Final quote, “Erupting on PP is not going to help you win friends and influence people.”

Do you know the difference between auto correct on a phone and Freudian slip? I didn’t say “RON PAUL WIN.” It was typed and probably auto-corrected by my phone. It should have been typed as:

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT UNDER ANY SENARIO.

I liked seeing that. Let’s see it again.

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT UNDER ANY SENARIO.

As far as expanding the base of the GOP goes, yes, we are always in favor of that, provided we keep our party platform primarily the same. I’m Ok with tweaks here and there. I don’t agree with it 100%. I am not going to extend a cup of kindness to ANY group who is out to support ONE candidate and ONLY one candidate. If their candidate doesn’t get the nomination, they are leaving and possibly running their candidate as a third party. GOOD. If they aren’t out to actually improve the GOP and only see it as a means to an end, I don’t need or want them. I will take their votes in an election, but they don’t need to be running my party or representing it at a national convention. If running Ron Paul as third party seems more important than electing someone other than President Obama, that’s very selfish and self-serving of them, but that is their right. It means he was not out to become the GOP nominee, but only using the GOP as a mean to an end. There is a word for that type of candidate. RINO! Republican In Name Only. Think about it the name RINO and tell me it doesn’t apply to someone who would run as a third party candidate.

I am not going to let people who have worked all of their life for the GOP be replaced by a cult member to the national convention if this is the first time they have ever tried to participate.

Are you actually saying that many Ron Paul cult members are not obnoxious? Please explain the math that Ron Paul has doubled the participation in the GOP. You asked Mark to show you where Congressman Paul got approximately one million dollars for having racist comments in a newsletter with his name on it. He did. Your reply? DEAFFENING SILENCE.

I don’t believe in negotiating with terrorists. I don’t extend cups of tea to people who want to use my party as a means to an end. Honey only works with people who are willing to work with you. If a cult is out to take your organization over to elect their leader, honey is not on the menu.

Most people in the tea party are better than that. They want to improve our nation by changing the way it does business. I applaud that. Most Ron Paul supporters are cult members. The only care about their candidate and NOTHING else.

I don’t think I’ve seen you post before this week and the same holds true for nicholastjohnson. I thought he was reasonable at first, but he is delusional if he thinks Ron Paul will ever have a shot at winning the white house. I predict that after your candidate gets less than 10% of the delegates, we will never see or hear from you again. My only question is, will there be special kool-aide for all cult members to drink after Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination? I hope not. I hope you all find the help that you need.

5000 people in attendance at a rally in Illinois. What’s the biggest turn out one of the other three has gotten? 2500 for Newt back in January, maybe. Despite winning the beauty contest in 0 states, his rallies are growing! People are sick and tired of the same old politicians – there is a change afoot, and it would be to the GOPs benefit to recognize it.

What you’re not understanding is that the tide is turning, and it is in your benefit to make every effort possible to woo us instead of shun us. We align more closely with the GOP than the Dems, but we won’t just sit there and let people like you try and belittle us and the candidate we support. The Dems would have to have wholesale position changes in a few key issues in order to align with us, but the GOP needs only to flex a bit to the right.

And, I think you can probably stop using the word “cult.” Unless you want to use it on every supporter of every candidate – because every candidate has a history, and his supporters all overlook that history because of the good principles he or she espouses.

For Illinois, will have to wait until March 20 to see the actual number of votes as a percentage. Real Clear Politics has Paul at 7% in Illinois as of 3/7 to 3/9. If accurate, crowds of 5,000 don’t elect people to the GOP nomination. Getting a majority of the delegates does. Are you next going to tell us that Congressman Paul brought a basket of fish a bread to feed the people?

Out of every 2012 PPP election held to date, the highest Congressman Paul has received is 9%.

What part of I don’t woo cult members do you not understand? A cult member is only concerned about their candidate and nothing else. Most rational people vote for a candidate that has values close to their beliefs. If they are voting for someone other than Congressman Paul, I’d consider them a traditional Republican.

I know you take it as a badge of honor not to be a traditional Republican. Traditional Republicans don’t swoon over who got how many people to a rally. They don’t use phrases like “Imperial Federal Government.” I don’t live in a star wars movie and Wrong Paul is not my only hope.

Cult members ignore questions like these:

How many YEARS passed between the racist (ok bigoted, just for you) statements that were printed and the checks that were cashed?

Can you find the words sorry, sorrow, regret, wrong or anything similar to them in his apology?

Fact check: Someone has a newsletter with their name on it, making racist statements, collecting money from them. Have their actions spoken louder than their words, proving that they are, in fact, a racist? I’d say yes.

Here’s the part that most Congressman Paul supporters can’t understand: to get the GOP nomination you have to have traditional Republican support. Paul doesn’t have it and won’t get it.

Doug, your post just made my day. You must be exhausted from getting carried away by your wild imagination. Still, this is my fave post of yours so far. Well, I can’t choose between this 1 & the “RON PAUL WIN” 1. Were you salivating when you wrote the 1st paragraph? You didn’t punch a wall, did you?

I apologize in advance for not responding in detail to your lengthy diatribe. It needs a lot of work, but I can tell you put a fair amount of time, energy, & thoug, well, time & energy into it. For the sake of expediency, I’ll simply categorize & just include some general comments. Here goes…

“Do you know the difference between auto correct on a phone and Freudian slip?”

Yes

For everything else: “scenario” is spelled with a “c”; RINO would include most of the GOP presidential candidates—maybe all of them if they were to be held strictly accountable; you are more obnoxious than anyone on this site; sorry can’t disclose why I haven’t responded to Mark yet, but I sorta like him (in a PP fashion); don’t know nicholastjohnson, but you are way more obnoxious than he is

Do you know the difference between auto correct on a phone and Freudian slip? I didn’t say “RON PAUL WIN.” It was typed and probably auto-corrected by my phone. It should have been typed as:

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT UNDER ANY SENARIO.

I liked seeing that. Let’s see it again.

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT UNDER ANY SENARIO.

As far as expanding the base of the GOP goes, yes, we are always in favor of that, provided we keep our party platform primarily the same. I’m Ok with tweaks here and there. I don’t agree with it 100%. I am not going to extend a cup of kindness to ANY group who is out to support ONE candidate and ONLY one candidate. If their candidate doesn’t get the nomination, they are leaving and possibly running their candidate as a third party. GOOD. If they aren’t out to actually improve the GOP and only see it as a means to an end, I don’t need or want them. I will take their votes in an election, but they don’t need to be running my party or representing it at a national convention. If running Ron Paul as third party seems more important than electing someone other than President Obama, that’s very selfish and self-serving of them, but that is their right. It means he was not out to become the GOP nominee, but only using the GOP as a mean to an end. There is a word for that type of candidate. RINO! Republican In Name Only. Think about it the name RINO and tell me it doesn’t apply to someone who would run as a third party candidate.

I am not going to let people who have worked all of their life for the GOP be replaced by a cult member to the national convention if this is the first time they have ever tried to participate.

Are you actually saying that many Ron Paul cult members are not obnoxious? Please explain the math that Ron Paul has doubled the participation in the GOP. You asked Mark to show you where Congressman Paul got approximately one million dollars for having racist comments in a newsletter with his name on it. He did. Your reply? DEAFFENING SILENCE.

I don’t believe in negotiating with terrorists. I don’t extend cups of tea to people who want to use my party as a means to an end. Honey only works with people who are willing to work with you. If a cult is out to take your organization over to elect their leader, honey is not on the menu.

Most people in the tea party are better than that. They want to improve our nation by changing the way it does business. I applaud that. Most Ron Paul supporters are cult members. The only care about their candidate and NOTHING else.

I don’t think I’ve seen you post before this week and the same holds true for nicholastjohnson. I thought he was reasonable at first, but he is delusional if he thinks Ron Paul will ever have a shot at winning the white house. I predict that after your candidate gets less than 10% of the delegates, we will never see or hear from you again. My only question is, will there be special kool-aide for all cult members to drink after Ron Paul fails to win the GOP nomination? I hope not. I hope you all find the help that you need.

We can go back and forth on little things such as: what did you mean by “& thoug?” if you like. I’m not about pointing out spelling or punctuation errors. That’s what you do when you don’t have anything to say. I’ll skip to the punch line and ask your reply on the subject. Whatever you type from here on, I will continue to ask for your reply on the subject.

You asked Mark to show you where Congressman Paul got approximately one million dollars for having racist comments in a newsletter with his name on it. He did. Your reply? DEAFFENING SILENCE.

“We can go back and forth on little things such as: what did you mean by “& thoug?” if you like.”

Yeah, that was a little tricky to make clear. As far as I know, this site doesn’t offer strikethroughs which are most useful to signify that the writer is both changing/deleting something & purposefully revealing a sarcastic bent. I’d hoped you would get that I interrupted my statement in mid-sentence & retracted the word “thought” from the list of “time, energy, & thought.” How’s this: “time, energy, & thoug…”?

“You asked Mark to show you where Congressman Paul got approximately one million dollars for having racist comments in a newsletter with his name on it. He did. Your reply? DEAFFENING SILENCE.”

You’re so relentless on this 1 unanswered post of mine/Mark’s, aren’t you? You are just such a curious little rhino. My response “sorry can’t disclose why I haven’t responded to Mark yet” didn’t satisfy you? You noticed the word “yet,” didn’t you, indicating that it hasn’t happened, but it will? “Yet,” here you go impatiently pressing me after a mere 4 hours since my last answer to you. You’re not planning to stalk me on PP every 4 hours, are you?

Now, it has crossed my mind that you are possibly demanding an accounting of my time to justify to you why I haven’t replied to that post. I’m soooo tempted to tell you all that I’ve been doing this week that might have prevented me from responding, but that would be inviting you into my personal life—too scary a thought. However, I’ll give you a sneak peek into the reasons why I’ve answered your posts & not Mark’s: 1) I don’t really have to expend much time or brain cells to digest the relatively small amount of substance in your posts which are about 20% substance & 89% arrogance. I know that adds up to a bit more than the average person’s 100%, but you’ve earned the extra 9%. On the other hand, Mark’s topic requires more thought & more of my time. Please be patient; I’ll get to your life’s most pressing issue asap. 2) My goals in replying to your posts have been reached & are detailed in the last paragraph (before the post scripts) of these comments.

“I’m not about pointing out spelling or punctuation errors. That’s what you do when you don’t have anything to say.”

Seriously, when have I not had plenty to say to you? My responses to your posts have been painfully explanatory. I, too, occasionally have typos & always have less than perfect grammar usage, so, perhaps I was wrong in trying to help you with your spelling. It’s just that sometimes, misspelling a word can totally change the meaning of a sentence, such as:

“RON PAUL WIN.” (Even your auto-correct knows wassup.)

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to propose that your reason (“That’s what you do when you don’t have anything to say.”) for not “pointing out spelling or punctuation errors” is EXACTLY the reason that good communicators don’t call other people insulting names just b/c they have philosophical differences with them. Name calling, ad hominem, & bullying are last resort tactics for people who are desperate to win their arguments but don’t have the knowledge, skills, or facts to defend their position. I know that’s painful for you to hear, but someone who cares about you s/h told you that long ago. Friends of Doug on this forum who supposedly care about him, were you complicit in his bully tactics or too scared to confront him? *crickets chirping*

“I’ll skip to the punch line and ask your reply on the subject. Whatever you type from here on, I will continue to ask for your reply on the subject.”

Well, to be honest, Doug, I’m a bit uncomfortable with this plan. I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but I really don’t want a long-term commitment with you. I’m sorry, but you’re not my type. The primary reasons I initially replied to your posts were to have the opportunity to tell you “You’re a Bully” & attempt to effect change. Since I’ve already met these goals, I don’t want to continue our repartee. Perhaps if you begin to play nicely with the others & try to see more than your own myopic views, I’ll reconsider your offer in the future.

P. S. I see you already have another rather verbose post addressed to me. OK, OK, I’ll honor your request of replying to you this 1 last time. I can’t promise a generous response, but I’ll give you whatever attention I can since you seem so needy for it.

There are 791 words you have just typed and none of them address that the FACT that Ron Paul made approximately one million dollars off of racists comments. The rest of what you typed was blah ,blah, blah…I’m not a bully in the sense that I threaten people, but I do debate and stay on track. I’m not derailed by spin, personal attacks, or even spelling and grammar errors, We are still waiting on your reply to the topic you brought up with Mark: Ron Paul’s racist comments.

I am not the RINO in this situation and in this case there is no “h.” That would be you: Republican In Name Only.

BTW, I don’t think any rational person on here is scared of me. They are just eatting popcorn, watching you squirm.

You just made a lot of noise but really didn’t say anything to the question at hand.

YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFFENING ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL MAKING MONEY BY BEING A RACIST.

Which is your fave, Doug? I just can’t decide. Let’s check Dictionary.com before we make a final choice: “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates [other] people.”

I think we nailed it on this 1, Doug.

“They are just eatting popcorn, watching you squirm.”

There might be a couple of typos/auto-correct problems here. Eenie, meenie… Did you mean “swim”? Either way, it ain’t happenin’.

Instead of using a Thesaurus to find other words that are similar, let’s use another dictionary to find a precise meaning.

From Wikipedia: Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability.[2][3] The “imbalance of power” may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a “target”.

There is no force being used. I am not making you log on to peach pundit to debate ideas. You are doing that on your own. There is no coercion. There is no penalty or implied penalty for not debating ideas, other than your ideas are proven to be indefensible. I’m not bringing up your indefensible support in any other threads than 2 at hand, and I’m not showing up at your house throwing them in your face. There is no imbalance of power. We are two people sitting at keyboards, but sometimes I am on my phone.

We are debating an idea; verbal harassment is a sketchy definition, but I am holding your feet to the fire. If you don’t like it, you can leave and not post again. There will be no repercussions from me, other than knowing you can’t defend the indefensible. Your attempt to label me a bully actually sort of makes you a bully, using the actual definition of the word. I have called you no names. You have tried to label me as a bully and assault my character by doing so. It is a failed ploy to run from the topic at hand.

There is no physical assault and I’ve already covered coercion. Unless your support of Ron Paul is based upon race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability, I think we have discovered that you are imprecise when you throw out names and labels.

Using dictionary.com’s definition, which is less precise, it still fails the smell test. “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” Well, for one thing, you can’t copy and past one simple sentence without editing it to suite your means. Does that make you a liar? I don’t think you are smaller or weaker. We are in a debate of ideas, so you will be held accountable when you twist definitions to make others look worse when you can’t defend the indefensible. When you lose a debate, do you always attack the character of the other person who holds your feet to the fire for things you have said or typed? I’m just asking.

As far as “blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers,” 95% of the people who post on here don’t have an issue with me that I am aware of. None of the are smaller than I am and none of them have anything to fear from me other than a vigorous debate of ideas. If they can’t handle that, they are on the wrong website.

I have indulged your attack on my character to show you how to answer a charge when the truth is on your side.

Yes, it is obvious that you are still squirming to avoid the subject at hand. YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFFENING ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL MAKING MONEY BY BEING A RACIST.

What—it’s YOUR resource or no resource?? Thesaurus.com is a perfectly legit reference site.

“…let’s use another dictionary to find a precise meaning. From Wikipedia: Bullying is…”

But, wait…you said “precise.” I thought everyone knew that, & let’s quote their website: “Wikipedia [is a] web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model…Wikipedia is WRITTEN COLLABORATIVELY BY LARGELY ANONYMOUS INTERNET VOLUNTEERS who write without pay. ANYONE WITH INTERNET ACCESS CAN WRITE AND MAKE CHANGES TO WIKIPEDIA…” (my caps for emphasis)

BTW, what you misquoted isn’t even the definition. To precisely quote you, “Does that make you a liar?” Here’s the actual definition on the same web page you so precisely selected: “Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.”

Man, oh, man, I really hate that you wasted 5 paragraphs vainly bloated with useless hot air to “defend the indefensible”–a definition that wasn’t actually a definition from a website that isn’t allowed to be cited by most public elementary school students b/c of its lack of credibility. As you chided, “…you will be held accountable when you twist definitions to make others look worse when you can’t defend the indefensible.” Venting, no matter how irrelevant & erroneous, can be very cathartic. But, can you imagine how much more self-efficacious it might be if you used credible, factual info in your rants?

“I am not making you log on to peach pundit to debate ideas…but I am holding your feet to the fire. If you don’t like it, you can leave and not post again.”

Where did you take a wrong turn? I never remotely intimated at any time that this issue was about me. Whether or not you are bullying me is beside the point. The point is & has always been that you bully people on PP with whom you disagree. It would even be very “precise” to say that you bully Ron Paulers particularly b/c you disagree with them. Since I haven’t sided with Ron Paul or any candidate, I have no concern about you bullying me. Were you bullying me & I didn’t notice? Oh, well.

“Using dictionary.com’s definition, which is less precise…”

“Less precise” according to DougDoesn’tLikeAnythingExceptHisPersonallySelectedUnpreciseResource.com? Dictionary.com is another perfectly legit reference site.

“Well, for one thing, you can’t copy and past one simple sentence without editing it to suite your means.”

There was no personal agenda for editing in “other.” My only reason for doing that was out of concern that any of the posters on this site whom you bully might interpret the “smaller or weaker” as being literal for or insulting to them. So, fault me for caring about other folks. Try this: “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates [perceived] smaller or weaker people.” The targets of bullies are whomever the bully perceives to be weaker & smaller (in any sense) regardless of whether or not the perception is reality. Before you try to argue against that, do some due diligence & research it.

“95% of the people who post on here don’t have an issue with me that I am aware of.”

Who are these 95%? People you know? Like they would actually tell you, Doug? Did you ask all of the posters on PP in order to arrive at a very precise 95%? You gave yourself a nice out: “…that I’m aware of…” Did you seriously ask even 1 of them in a way that they would feel safe to answer you honestly? But, here’s another consideration…If “95% of the people who post on here” were bullies, too, would that make you any less of a bully?

“Yes, it is obvious that you are still squirming to avoid the subject at hand. YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFFENING ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL MAKING MONEY BY BEING A RACIST.”

Are you the self-appointed internet Gestapo? OK, Herr Grammer, I haven’t replied to 1 isolated post on the entire internet. I also confess that I haven’t practiced guitar today, washed my car this week, or called my grandma in a long time. Please, please forgive me. (faux grovel)

It’s kinda creepy how you’re obsessing on 1 single unanswered question on PP when there are so many other unanswered posts. Take Debbie’s, for instance. Gosh, we’ve been waiting nearly 3 weeks for her to state Ron Paul’s foreign policy & explain why she doesn’t like it. Notice how I’ve waited patiently for her response? I noticed you’ve been waiting patiently, too. In fact, not once have you hounded Debbie nor anyone else to respond to unanswered questions. Well, except me. Dear Lord, why am I being trolled by someone I don’t even know to reply to a post that isn’t even his? Doug, are you really Mark? If not, I hope Mark’s not offended by that question.

Heads up, Deb: I’m almost thru chatting with Doug, so be ready for his unrelenting pursuit of why you haven’t answered those questions about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Doug is so determined to hold everyone but himself accountable here on PP. I just try to keep in mind that we’re all after the same thing. TRUTH, right? *crossing my fingers, hoping that’s true*

Back to you, Doug. If you choose to reply to this post, please, please, please stick to facts that can be documented by reliable sources. One thing I dislike almost as intensely as your bullying is having to do your homework for you.

I’ll occasionally check in on you, but I really need to scoot on over to Mark’s post for which you’ve been breathlessly awaiting my response. Please don’t think I’m giving up on you. I didn’t spend all this time coaching you to leave you floundering in ignorance. Here’s a little experiment that could yield untold benefits for you & others on PP. Just thinking this seems wildly crazy, but what if you made a genuine effort for, say, 1 month to express your opinions respectfully & with the goal of being open to differing viewpoints? Too much to ask? Hmmm…Now, this 2nd idea isn’t optimal, but it will certainly be a HUGE improvement over your current m.o. Try asking yourself, “What’s the best way for me to make those inferior thinkers on PP feel even more inferior yet stop appearing foolish & overbearing to my friends?” I really hope you’ll consider suggestion #1. Remember, Doug…”flies & honey.”

“But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends.” “It does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding.” ~~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am saying if you don’t support the GOP or it’s eventual nominee (WHO WON”T BE RON PAUL) why are you wasting your time and ours by coming to the GOP conventions? I’m all for adding new members to the GOP, even ones whom I don’t agree with, but if Ron Paul is the ONLY reason you are there, I am saying I don’t understand why Ronulan Paulbots are bothering.

It’s not going to happen. I have decided that I will probably not be going to Tampa, but I will be looking closely at who does go, and it won’t be Ron Paul supporters who are there for the first time. Now if someone had been active for years and still supports RP, then I might be open to that, depending on whom else wants to go.

I am saying if you don’t support the GOP or it’s eventual nominee (WHO WON”T BE RON PAUL) why are you wasting your time and ours by coming to the GOP conventions?

Because our system gives us no other recourse. I’m sorry if you feel like folks using your party to get what they want, but when the system is designed in such a way that you either take control of one of these two useless parties or you just stay home, folks don’t have much choice.

It is obvious that you and others have such a fiercely blind loyalty to the party that you have no clue whatsoever of the damage that has been done to this country at the hands of both Democrats and Republicans. You think this is just about Ron Paul? You’d better pray that it is just about Ron Paul, because if it is something bigger (which, it is, it is about freedom, something I hope you will one day realize is more important than “yay we beat Obama, teeheeheehee!!!! We beat some democrats. Who cares what our team does now?! We won!!!”), then I’ll look forward to booting some of you out power, ’cause maybe it’s you that doesn’t need to be wasting your time and ours.

4 out of 10 people in this country see nothing in either the Democrats or Republicans which motivates them to even show up once every 4 years to vote for a president. You folks are scared because Ron Paul has found a way to motivate those folks to put a stop to this two-party loyalty insider game. He’s got people coming out who you’d never have thought were interested in politics, and they’re not coming to play this game called ‘support-the-party-your-entire-life-only-to-realize-that-nothing-changed’. Well, some folks don’t even realize it.

If I were scared of Ron Paul, I wouldn’t talk about him. I can take him. He’s not going to get 10% of the delegates. What I don’t like is the thought of hard working Republicans who have been active for years being replaced by first time attending cult members. If people wan to be active and change the system and the GOP to something better, I welcome them with arms wide open. Cult members need not apply.

Technically I don’t see my self as “in Power” outside of my county in the GOP. That being said, I can still influence a debate and most of the time my calls get returned if I need something by those in power. You don’t have to have a title to make a change. Once we get members of the GOP elected, I want them to stay close to the party platform. If they go off raising taxes with no good reason, I’m OK with a primary challenge. I want to see my tax dollars used wisely. As a matter of fact, there is a Republican in elected office in my county who is about to find out that I don’t particularly care for the way she has been doing her job. Time will tell how that conversation turns.

I suppose that 4/10 people are ‘cult members’ not because of Ron Paul, but because they have absolutely no inclination whatsoever to show up to vote in a system that will either (a) tell them what to do with their own lives, or (b) tell others what to do with theirs. I’ll tell you right now that I’d rather have been at home on March 10th, just being one of the 40%, lol, but I just can’t take any more of what you guys and the democrats have been doing to this country. Ron Paul, a man, will not motivate those 4/10 people to fight, but frustration will, as your government (D’s and R’s alike) which we have been trying so earnestly to ignore makes its presence more intrusive and destructive.(and frankly these new people don’t much care how much time you or anyone else put into your parties, and, really, I don’t think I’d be speaking proudly about some sort of tenure unless you’ve actually made the country better for it, which, neither party can claim).

Four out over every ten people would have Ron Paul leading the GOP nomination in delegates. He’s last among those still campaigning. He hasn’t cracked one out of ten yet. When you get better at math, we will talk again.

4/10 people would rather not take part in a system where smug, arrogant pricks such as yourself dictate what they shall or shall not do with their lives. They don’t vote, simply because they don’t want to become just like you. Now you can have the last word. I’ll give you that, but I intend to fight for your freedom whether you like it or not.

Pardon me for not automatically understanding what you meant by “4/10 people.” You were so clear, how could I have missed it?

If they have the opportunity to vote and decide not to, I don’t want to hear them gripe. If they can’t take time out to get an absentee ballot or go to the polls, I didn’t take their voice away. They decided not use it.

As far as I can tell, unless you are in the military and on active duty, you aren’t fighting for anything. You are debating…. and losing. Calling me names won’t change that.

–This comment is in response to c_murrayiii’s comment, which begins “here’s the problem with Paul and the Paulistas” —

He is the only candidate that understands the Constitution and can take us back to the original intent. Whether all of the things that need to be done can actually get done is, sort of, irrelevant. As long as Dr. Paul is working toward accomplishing those goals, we are getting closer to the solution – with any of the other three candidates, we’re only going away from those solutions.

For someone who isn’t a leader, he has swayed quite a few million people to his “side”. Maybe having him in the WH, we’ll lean on our elected officials to get his initiatives passed.

You are right about the entrenched interests, and the changes we seek will take several presidencies. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that we should start now.

A “narrow segment of Independents”?!?! Really? If by “narrow segment”, you mean the majority of Americans regardless of party, then yes, it is a narrow segment. Notice I said, the majority of Americans – not the majority of voters; that is a distinction the neo-cons like to avoid noticing.

Revolution is exactly what is happening now. A change in government without firing a bullet.

I’ve heard the “isolationist” term thrown about by a bunch of people, but I’m not sure how it originated. Paul’s free trade position is the very opposite of isolationist. I assume you mean defensive isolationism – to which I’d counter, that I trust that Paul would use our military excellence (which he wants to improve and expand) to swiftly and effectively destroy an identified enemy quicker than any of the other three candidates.

The rest of your paragraph shows what I’ve heard called legislated morality. It is sort of like the domestic version of legislated morality: Because, in my religion, it is immoral to wear blue shirts; therefore, you blue shirt wearers will be locked up. But, wait, me wearing a blue shirt doesn’t hurt anyone.

With foreign legislated morality, you basically want to impose your morals on the rest of the world. Sort of like we did in the 50s when we helped the citizens overthrow the ayatollah in Iran, or when we helped install Saddam in Iraq, or when we gave munitions and training to the group that would eventually become Al Qaeda to push back the Russians. We lead by example, not by interfering with sovereign nations. I completely agree that all humans deserve liberty, but we have no right to enforce our beliefs on another nation. The founders understood that meddling in foreign affairs would lead to our bankruptcy and downfall, but somewhere along the line, we’ve forgotten that fact.

Instead of putting our bases on foreign soil, we could have floating battle groups in international waters all around the world. With the most advanced Navy on the planet, we could be to any point on the globe in moments. We don’t need land bases – that is just 20th century thinking.

We should definitely advocate for the oppressed everywhere! I agree! MLK said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” However, that does not mean we can launch unilaterally at a nation that isn’t actually threatening us. “Forwardly deployed” in every ocean accomplishes the same goal.

I’m not a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who will say that we brought 9/11 on ourselves; however, I do think that our involvement in the region, as I outlined above, acted as a catalyst to the hatred. Would it have happened otherwise? Maybe, but maybe not.

The average Iranian people are no different from us. They wake up, take their kids to school, go to work, come home tired, make dinner, watch tv, go to bed, and do it all again the next day. Their government will be overthrown with or without us – it isn’t our responsibility to do it for them. The people are moving into the 21st century, as well, and they’ll soon get rid of their dictators who are stuck in the middle ages.

Seriously, Iran having a nuclear weapon would “threaten the safety and security, and freedom, of the world”? That sounds like a movie trailer – and who will fight this post-apocalyptic battle in the fight for good versus evil? We could pluck a missile out of the sky, if it was in our interest to do so, and we could let in land, if it wasn’t. Plus, Iran isn’t the only dysfunctional regime to have a nuclear weapon.

Your last line is the best – “there is no going back to the days when our oceans protected us” – Absolutely! We must be strong and to be strong we must be rich and to be rich we must not be in debt to our biggest long-term threat: China. And, to get out of debt, we must end the nation building, “interventionist” wars. Let’s save those trillions for when we’ll actually need them.

I look forward to everyone’s responses to my thoughts, and I thank you for the opportunity to debate these issues intellectually and without ad hominem attacks.

They watch too much Fox and listen to too much Hannity, Rush, Levin, Orielly. HEY! Anyone know what color we are today on the Terror Color Chart?? lol…..Oh! What was that? 8{ I heard something…..Is that one of dem Muslooms? Is he a terrist? He hates us ya know. Cause we is Free. Never we kill their Children just about everyday in their own homeland. Its cuzz we’re Free I tell ya.

Actually, I don’t watch or listen to any of those. And I still know that Paul does not pull in much support, despite the claims of Paulistas, who simultaneously claim Paul does great with independents, and that the media has ignored Paul and if he could only get his message out, people would flock to him.

There is a difference between legislating morality, in the sense that the government tells you what you can do to your own body, in your own house, and opposing regimes like Syria and Iran that oppress their own people through torture, murder, and suppression of political and economic rights.

You say we need a strong military and we should save the trillions we spend now (a bit of an exaggeration if your just counting costs in the Global War on Terror and Iraq) so we have a strong military in the future. This sounds reasonable, but when you consider that if we allow the middle east to go to hell, and we allow Pakistan, Russia, China, and India to fight over the scraps of Afghanistan by us leaving, then you must realize the costs to the world of such chaos will be very high and raise considerably the cost of our future action, when those nations (China in particular) directly threaten our security.

As a last point, you claim Paul is leading millions, however, at this point in the primaries, with some 25 caucuses/primaries behind us, Paul has accumulated under a million total votes, not even half of Gingrich or Santorum’s totals, and less than a third of Romney’s. You can keep saying he is popular, but I see no evidence of it.

I recognize Doug’s point, it is a waste to argue with Paulistas, ya’ll are convinced he’s the man and that’s fine, more power to you. But I am equally convinced of the opposite, and it seems most Republicans agree with me.

The difference you claim in the first paragraph exists only in its application – the philosophy is the same.

The second paragraph sounds like it was written by an action film writer.

The third paragraph ignores the difference between voters in Republican primaries and all citizens, ie my mom supports Newt but didn’t go vote for him.

And, it isn’t a waste to debate us – we’re perfectly willing to change opinions if presented with sound logic.

Regardless of the nominee, Republicans or Democrats won’t get their horse elected – it will be the swing of those Independents, so whether or not “most” Republicans agree with you is a bit of a moot point.

As we only had 23 in Dade and the chairman didn’t know how many delegates the precincts could send to the County convention they could have ruled Dade. It was kinda of embarrassing to see the chairman call someone to see if we were in the 9th or the 14th. I guess he didn’t listen to the video he played before that by Graves. It was so painful I would of enjoyed a Paul delegation protest. I guess starting the meeting 8 minutes before the called time and waving the reading of the call doesn’t matter either. Other than that it was a good meeting. Can’t wait to see how many don’t show up to the State or District after trying to look good to the locals by volunteering to go.

NGG
Its not a warning to everyone. Its to the ignorant ones that write a blog entry like this one. Not sure there will room for your type of ignorance when the reformation comes. Its not a cult. One could say the Neo-Con faction is a cult. The military Industrial Complex has complete control over you. Ours is a Grass roots movement to restore respectability back to the Country and even the GOP party itself. Stop the out of control spending. No, REALLY stop the out of control spending. End these ridiculous Trillion dollar wars. Preserve what’s left of the Constitution. All crazy, lunatic agendas right?

I get the impression that you’re mad that we’re here. Almost everyone else seems to enjoy very civil discourse with us, but you’ve taken a very hard stance here. Either you’re mad that we’re monopolizing these threads, or you are scared that we’re going to spread too much logic.

Any thoughts? Is he always this way, or just when he disagrees with someone?

Actually no. It was your comment that others were frightened of an ‘establishment blog.’ It is my suggestion that folks leave the sweet comfort of an echo chamber and join the world. Quite contrary: I am glad you are here, and welcome you. That said, however, do not simply assume that nonsense would go unchallenged.

The Paul supporters didn’t just “show up.” We all attended the mass precinct meetings, went to the county GOP meets-ups, and paid dues to join the party. We also went in front of the nominating commitee to kiss the ring of the establishment in Cobb. All this only to find out that we were left off their delegate slate, and discriminated against due to our age.

In Cobb we still managed to take one third of the delegates, although we were shooting for control of ALL OF THEM.

The good news is that we are all interconnected via email, meetups and social media. After the discraceful actions of the establishment to keep us out, we are even more fired and motivated to completely take over the power of the GOP establishment across all levels… And guess what, we actually have the numbers to do it.

This movement will live beyond Paul’s presidential race. Time to hide Neo-cons.

You are aware, I hope, that the county parties all have monthly meetings and that the convention cycle (especially this year) is a relatively minor part of what the parties will be doing??

When I say that many of you just showed up recently…I meant just that. Showing up for conventions and expecting those of us who do the work in the party to put you (who are strangers) on a list of delegates to represent us would be like going to the polls and picking the first name on the list to represent you in Congress even though you had never laid eyes on the person or even heard the name before. I know a lot of voters will do that, but no one who is actively involved in the GOP does that.

Party meetings are free, open to the public, and advertised on every county website/facebook group. Dr. Paul has been running for President for a while. It would have been nice for your advisers in the Paul campaign to tell you to start going to county meetings 6 months to a year ago so it wouldn’t have been so obvious what the goal was. It is just human nature to react to a “hostile takeover” with…hostility. If a bunch of people supporting a certain candidate who was not Dr. Paul showed up to your meet-up group in order to take it over and change it, I suspect you would not react any differently than those grassroots GOP activists last weekend.

A few things you & many of the posters on this site don’t have to “feign”–your new fave word?–are arrogance, self-absorption, & hubris. You proudly publish your simple biased opinions as if they are fact, giving no consideration to any other possible explanation. Pray tell, how does it feel to be so sure YOU are right that you don’t need to consider anyone else’s viewpoint?

I don’t blame anyone for following he rules. I just find it a tax irritating that people who have never attended a county gop meeting or than one mass meeting and one convention think that they should be delegates and alternates to the district and state conventions. Those spots should be for those you best represent the gop. If you have done no work for any candidate other than Congressman Paul, please explain why you best represent the gop of your county.

All of the events are important, but I can’t think of any more important than the mass precinct, county, district, state and national conventions. Should we have gone to more breakfasts, yes; should we have helped canvas for candidates, probably; should we have attended more meetings, definitely. But, when the chips are down, we come out in force at the events that will ultimately decide our next President – if the regulars didn’t think it was important enough to come, we don’t think the GOP should have thought the regulars were important enough to make delegates or alternates. We were prepared to stay all day and night to make that point heard.

The function of a political party is to elect people to public office….. The end. It is not to hold mass meeting and attend conventions, but that is a small part of making up the framework of how they elect people to public office. Other than Congressman Paul, what other candidate(s) have you or any of your ilk (your words, seeing how you like them) ever supported by doing any work for them or writing checks to them? None?

There is a difference between a political party and a cult. A party works to promote a platform of ideas and elect people who will support them. A cult centers around one person and claim that only HE can save us.

Democracy is sometimes two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. We typically go by the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. I have lost votes but at least I had a chance to try to persuade before a vote.

Doug, borrowing your cliché yet effectively malicious remarks, “Look at what you posted. Then read what I posted. You should be able to figure out that” I never said I was playing anything. It was YOU who suggested that you were playing a game. I can see how you might forget who said what since you’re so busy playing convention politics & all.

I asked what you were referring to b/c your response to my post seems so unrelated. My post was a reply to the original article at the top of this page. If you already knew that, are you suggesting that big people like you who play convention politics are entitled to be overbearing & patronizing to little people like me?

That might explain why many of the posters on this forum are so pompous & esteem themselves way too highly. Despite all your claims about welcoming new voices to the GOP, most of y’all’s comments aren’t even remotely conciliatory. I know, I know, that’s not a skill set necessary for being expertly rude to others, a characteristic of which you seem to be genuinely proud. Just curious…Do you folks talk to your kids, spouses, pastors, neighbors, parents, or dogs the same disparaging way you talk to certain others on Peach Pundit?

That’s a rhetorical question for those of you who can’t wait to answer “yes.” This isn’t rhetorical: If your goal is to unify & grow the GAGOP, you do know that insulting & alienating others will not accomplish that, don’t you? I’m guessing some of you have already considered that but have no intention of changing how you dialog on PP b/c your egos are bigger than your brains. And, of course, for some, such as Doug G., this is a game. Those of you who actually do embrace cohesive ideology, do you know of another GOP forum where intelligent people exchange ideas, even respectfully disagree *gasp*, without bashing each other like quarreling narcissists?

I don’t know your height or weight and I doubt you know mine. I’m not sure where you get that one of us is bigger than the other. We are on equal footing under Robert’s Rules of Order. If you are a delegate, you have the right to make motions and speak on their behalf, twice. If you can sway the other delegates to do what you want, great for you.

The entire thread is about conventions. You asked what game I was playing. Considering we were talking about conventions, I thought the correct answer would be “conventions.” To be precise, I asked what you were playing. I didn’t state that you were playing anything.

Your first post in this thread was overbearing & patronizing. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out:

March 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm
“Typical ad hominem posturing. Instead of dealing with real issues, you jump to ridiculous what-ifs and even more ridiculous suppositions. Sadly, you might be right on the imbecile part, tho’ I’d never call you that…to your face. BTW, imbecile is spelled with 2 “e”s.”

I talk to cult members who want to hijack my party to elect their cult leader in a rude manner in the hopes that they will recognize that their efforts are not appreciated. I get along well with most people I encounter on a day to day basis. For someone who doesn’t like names, you throw them out there quite quickly.

As I told your cohort, if you don’t like being called a cult member, don’t be one. If you want to improve the GOP, great, you are welcomed, but you don’t go to the front of the line over others who have worked for years in the GOP.

“I don’t know your height or weight and I doubt you know mine. I’m not sure where you get that one of us is bigger than the other.”

Huh?? Doug, you weren’t thinking I wanted to wrestle you, were you?

“We are on equal footing under Robert’s Rules of Order. If you are a delegate, you have the right to make motions and speak on their behalf, twice. If you can sway the other delegates to do what you want, great for you.”

Unfortunately, we aren’t under RRO on this forum. But, as someone boasting so much about interpreting & enforcing rules, you’ve obviously buried the golden one.

“To be precise, I asked what you were playing. I didn’t state that you were playing anything.”

semantics

“Your first post in this thread was overbearing & patronizing. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out:”

“ ‘March 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm
“ ‘Typical ad hominem posturing. Instead of dealing with real issues, you jump to ridiculous what-ifs and even more ridiculous suppositions. Sadly, you might be right on the imbecile part, tho’ I’d never call you that…to your face. BTW, imbecile is spelled with 2 “e”s.’ ”

Yeah, at 1st I felt badly about agreeing with Mize’s self-assessment. But, then I remembered why I wrote it: His overgeneralized & cynical stereotyping of the unlikeminded was insolent & gratuitous. This was my 1st visit to PP in a long time & not being aware how cut throat most of you folks are, I thought Mize was unnecessarily nasty toward the stepchildren of this forum. Then I read your posts, Doug. Maybe I should apologize to Mize. Nah…nasty is still nasty.

Doug, I love it when you selectively use a quote out of context. You “forgot” to include Mize’s ad hominem post to which I responded. Here ya go: “Are you going to declare the Constitution irretrevibly broken, march on Congress, and burn the Capitol down?”

Ad hominem exemplar

“I talk to cult members who want to hijack my party to elect their cult leader in a rude manner in the hopes that they will recognize that their efforts are not appreciated. I get along well with most people I encounter on a day to day basis.”

I wish I could comment on these sentences, but they’re just too pathetic to respond to. Even my Thesaurus shut down when I read them aloud.

“For someone who doesn’t like names, you throw them out there quite quickly.”

“As I told your cohort, if you don’t like being called a cult member, don’t be one.”

Not sure to which of your imaginary boogeymen you refer b/c I don’t know anyone on this site. In case this is your passive aggressive way of talking down to me, point taken. Note to self: Doug Grammer is a bully who tries to intimidate people with whom he disagrees. Yep, I called you a name, Doug. U R A B-u-l-l-y.

“If you want to improve the GOP, great, you are welcomed, but you don’t go to the front of the line over others who have worked for years in the GOP.”

Have no idea why you brought up line-jumping. I’ll let it slide.

Any outsider who reads the comments on PP can easily discern that certain people use bullying tactics–like you, Doug. Have any of your cohorts—to use your word–called you out on this? They sit silently watching their own verbally bludgeon anyone with differing views, all the while touting how everyone is welcome here. “You’re welcome here.” “You’re a cult.” “You’re welcome here.” “You’re a cult.” It’s confusing, isn’t it? No wonder your head is spinning.

You either have a future in politics or in washing machines. Either way, you are good at spinning. Let me try to throw in some gravity. I’ll keep it simple for you because you try to read too much into things. Let’s start with two definitions. A cult member only cares about the cult leader and nothing else. A Republican cares about the Republican party and is not overly concerned with any one candidate.

I am a Republican. Cult members wanting to hijack my party to elect their cult leader are not Republicans. If they are willing to vote for the cult leader as a third party candidate, that makes them RINOs. Do I need to explain what a Rino is? I don’t care for cult members, Rinos, or liberals. I don’t go out of my way to be nice to them, but at least I am honest about it.

Apparently, you are not good at understanding frames of reference. This will be the second time I have had to try to explain things to you for reference sake. We are talking about conventions. Do I need to explain what a convention is? (to be precise, that’s patronizing.) You asked if “big people like you are entitled to be overbearing & patronizing little people like me?” I brought in height and weight because of your patronizing question. I talked about Robert’s Rules of Order because we are talking about conventions. If you think I am a big person, well maybe I could still stand to lose another 15 pounds. If you think of yourself as little, eat the cake. (That’s an Alice in wonderland reference. Do I have to explain when I am joking as well? You might not know one if it bit you, based upon your lack of understanding references.)

I didn’t burry the golden rule, I embrace it. I treat others as I would like to be treated. If I walked into the state Democratic party convention for the first time and stated that I wanted them to elect me as a delegate so I could vote for whomever I wanted to be the Democratic nominee for President regardless if that person received less than 10% of the vote in any state Democratic presidential preference primary, I would expect to be booed and yelled at until I left. I don’t believe in their platform, but I’m honest about that. If I were to join another political party, I would support the nominee, even if my candidate lost. I don’t expect the candidate that I voted for in the primary to win, but I will be voting for the nominee. (It won’t be Ron Paul.)

Now, a bully threatens people. I have never threatened you. I am a little condescending with people who are out to be pains, but I’m not a bully. Now you say you haven’t called anyone names but you have used adjectives. I’ll borrow your word.

“Semantics.”

If you have no idea of why I brought up line jumping, then you have reading comprehension impairments, but I’m starting to take that as obvious problem with you. Ron Paul supporters want to be delegates to the national convention. If this is their first rodeo, (convention cycle, I know you have trouble with references) they can forget it. There are too many people who have worked to build this party for years to let the cult members go to the front of the line.

Mary, trying to paint me as bully is a political tactic. You want people to feel sorry for you and be mad at me. This debate is not about you or I personally. You don’t like the fact that you have been out debated on the issues that matter and you are trying to turn this into a mudslinging contest not focused on any issue. It is about the fact that you can’t admit that Congressman Ron Paul made money off of a newsletter that used racist comments. I’ll end with two things that bear repeating:

YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFFENING ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL MAKING MONEY BY BEING A RACIST.

Dr. Paul made money off a newsletter that used bigoted commentary. What now?

Shall we flog him publicly? Should he give the money back? Should he call you and personally apologize?

The silence is deafening because the making of the money is not the issue – the issue is fact that there were bigoted comments attributed to him. And, we’ve discussed that issue – ad nauseum, for four years.

Also, I’ve started a new comment thread below to address your issue with the issues.

You recognize that not “treating people of different races with respect” is wrong but don’t recognize that not treating people of different ideologies with respect is also wrong? Yeah, I’m not talking about Ron Paul’s bigotry; I’m talking about yours, Doug.

*********************************************************

Doug Grammer March 16, 2012 at 10:55 pm

What now? I would want him to drop out of the race and retire. We don’t need a bigot seeking the whitehouse. BTW, I had the same attitude when David Duke ran. Google him.

We have not discussed this issue for four years. We haven’t even discussed it for a week. You need to start a stop Ron Paul movement wuthin the Ron Paul ranks, unles you approve of bigots.

Being right on every issue and being wrong on treating people of different races with respect is enough to disqualify a candidate.

“You recognize that not “treating people of different races with respect” is wrong but don’t recognize that not treating people of different ideologies with respect is also wrong?”

MLK wanted us the judge him by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. I don’t like cult members, rino’s, liberals, or communists. I don’t care what color they may be. Taking issues with other peoples political beliefs is perfectly acceptable and that doesn’t make me a bigot. I see when you have nothing to say about the topic at hand you attack the messenger. Interesting tactic. Are you a Democrat?

Oh by the way:

YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFFENING ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL MAKING MONEY BY BEING A RACIST.

Doug, thanks for taking the time to explain so many of your comments. In fact, feel free to explain yourself anytime. You’re right that it’s difficult to understand a lot of what you write–b/c of your illogic, all the rabbit trails you take your comments on, & the many wrong assumptions you make. I still didn’t find any relevance in most of what you wrote, but I’m sure you did your best.

About “semantics.” Actually, there’s a marked difference between addressing a person’s personhood (noun) & their behavior (adjectives plus other parts of speech). Good parents understand the importance of this. Wise employers know the difference. Teachers, too. Your therapist could explain this to you in depth.

“If you have no idea of why I brought up line jumping, then you have reading comprehension impairments…”

See, now here’s 1 of your wrong assumptions to which I referred. I said, “Have no idea why you brought up line-jumping.” I did not say, “I don’t know what line-jumping is. Please explain it to me, Doug, & make sure you talk extremely rudely to me in the process.” I’m guessing everyone on PP knows WHAT line-jumping is. That you attached it to me is where your assumption fails. Once again, I have not discussed my candidate preference with you or anyone else on this site. Hence, line-jumping is not relative to me or our conversations, & I still have no idea why you brought it up. It’s always a good idea to ask for clarification before doing that assuming thing you do so badly.

“You don’t like the fact that you have been out debated on the issues that matter…” What issues, Doug?

You sound like a baby when you write stuff like, “You want people to feel sorry for you and be mad at me.”

It just had to be said. You sound like a baby. Ok, you may return to your hysteria now…

(I’d like to thank Mark for the inspiration to write the 2 lines just above.)

Doug, since you boasted, “Some of us know how to answer questions when asked,” how ‘bout answering the 1 I asked: “What issues, Doug?”

And what’s “the issue at hand”? Do you mean the one that King Doug has chosen to be THE ONE, THE ONLY from among so many issues on this site? Do you mean the one to which you keep diverting all our conversations in order to avoid the other issues at hand, including the issue of you behaving like a bully?

Will it help if I told that I talked to Brian Laurens in the last day or so? He told me you sent him an e-mail from [email protected], and he did the same research I did, and you admitted your identity to him? And then you said you wanted to be left alone. After you e-mailed him?

After watching last night’s results from Alabama and Mississippi, perhaps somebody here could clear this up for me. So if Newt drops out, do his delegates become uncommitted and able to vote for whomever, or are they still bound by law to vote for Newt?

Eventually it’s gonna come down to who the Party big wigs tell them to vote for. That’s why they want to keep it a closed deal. Be a “good” GOP’er and do what you’re told. Newt will not be the nominee. Santorum is setting the table for an Open Convention. Mitt is the Chosen one. The delegates will be unbound by min. 2nd round. All kinds of deals will be made. Then Ron Paul goes Third Party! A broken down, divided Neo-Con GOP. A brainless Democrat following. Everyone else follows Paul to the Historic Third Party Nov. victory! How bout them Apples!

If Newt suspends his campaign, then the delegates are still bound and he is still eligible for Federal funds. If he withdraws, the delegates are released and he is no longer eligible for federal funds. Don’t expect him to withdraw. He will keep his delegates bound so he will have some power at the convention..

I think Romney will be close to the “magic number” by the time the convention rolls around and the voting won’t go past 2nd round..

Newt will withdraw before the convention. His delegates will become free agents, on the FIRST round of voting.

Santorum may withdraw too, if Mittens is presumed to be close to the magic 1144 number, in order to create “party unity”. Both of them will tell their delegates to vote for Mittens — but it won’t matter what they TELL them to do, the delegates will be able to do whatever they WANT to do.

I don’t think the voting will go past the second round either, though. But there’s a good chance that a huge chunk of those newly-release delegates won’t be voting the way debbie *thinks* they’ll be voting… LOL.

Lo, did not realize you were Newt’s campaign manager. Newt can suspend his campaign and still keep his delegates pledged and so can Santorum. You don’t really think they will release them do you? Is that just wishful thinking by a Ron Paul supporter? Everyone knows what Ron Paul supporters have planned. Do you really believe that Newt and Santorum will play into their hands? Get real… Newt’s delegates will still be bound to vote for him in the first round – count on it..

It is time for Ron Paul supporters to face the fact Ron Paul’s chances for winning the nomination fall somewhere between slim and none..

As I’ve said before, Dr. Paul getting the nomination is the icing – the cake is in the wholesale changes taking place within the ranks of the Republican party (and, perhaps, the hearts and minds of all Americans). We’re older and more ready to lead than we were in 08 – we promised to change the party then, but we were still too green. We’re still probably too green, but we’re going to try our best.

I’ve been told by several here that they’ve been trying to slowly pull the GOP back towards liberty and limited government; if that is true, our numbers should help that cause move a little quicker. “Because that’s how its always been done” is no longer a valid reason – logic and reason will triumph over mysticism and cronyism.

Wait a minute…Debbie, I thought YOU were Newt’s campaign manager. You said of Newt, “He will keep his delegates bound so he will have some power at the convention..”

I’m sure/pretty sure Lo can/will speak for himself/herself, but I can’t resist saying/pointing out how sarcastic/condescending/hypocritical you were toward him/her. Just curious…Would you have been this presumptuous responding to any of your buds on this forum? Or does Lo just have this dubious pleasure b/c you are who you are & he/she is, well, who he/she is?

It really has, and John Stossel talks about meetings he is involved in at FOX where they specifically discuss how to ignore Dr. Paul. The entrenched interests are truly scared of him – he could be a game changer. I think that is the reason some of the people here have such pushback against him – either they are the entrenched interests or they are heavily influenced by them (consciously, or otherwise).

If he had the same coverage as the other candidates, I have no doubt that more people would support him. There was a debate in which he said only 5 more words than the moderator, and nearly 1000 less than his closest competitor. It isn’t coincidental that you rarely see a panorama of an event from the other three candidates – they people are packed into a tight space and given pre-made “homemade” support signs. At Paul rallies, the fire marshal shuts the doors of 3000 person arenas – regularly. I’m not sure how GOP regulars and brass can keep ignoring these inconvenient truths.

clearly someone in the gop is not ignoring him–if politicalwire is to be believed, paul is going to cut a deal with romney…and through his support behind him to get to the magic 1144 (or whatever it is) in exchange for various “things” like an audit of the fed or whatever…curious how his faithful will react if it goes down…

I would imagine they’d all commit hara-kiri after much wailing and gnashing of teeth if such a deal were struck, because whatever Romney promises will never get done. This is politics. Promises are for getting votes, not for actually following through with, after all.

Jimmie, if you are elected as a delegate for Newt, then you are required to vote for him in the first round unless he releases his delegates. I assume if someone is a delegate for Newt, they will vote for him in at least the first round because they will not want to violate the law and be charged with a crime. I would encourage you to read the link above.. He has made it clear today that he is in until the convention..

If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee, then yes I would support him without hesitation. Any of the GOP candidates would make a better President than Obama.

The wrong Paul ran for President – it should have been Rand Paul . He would have stood a chance at getting elected. I could definitely support Rand Paul..

Alas, Jimmie, she is absolutely right. I would bet jail time and heavy fines would be levied against anyone who doesn’t vote for the candidate to which they are bound.

Once released, though, its open season.

Debbie, I’m curious why you would support Rand, and not Ron. Surely age is not the deciding factor? And, don’t use the electability argument – polls have shown Ron beating Obama in a general election. Is there something different about their policies that would make you support Rand? By the way, I think not voting for someone because of their age is akin to not voting for someone because they have curly hair, or a mole on their chin, or wear glasses, or are color blind. It may be the worst possible excuse for NOT voting for someone. Similarly, and this is especially applicable here, I think voting for someone because they are from your home state may be the worst possible reason TO vote for someone.

I know the people here are probably educated, but how many Georgians voted for Newt simply because they know he’s from here? When the masses pick Presidents based on a beauty contest, it’s no wonder our nation is spiraling toward shambles. Those introspective geniuses would probably make better Presidents, but they could never get elected in this corrupt system. That is a sad commentary on the intelligence of the American people, but it is, unfortunately, true.

There are many reasons that I don’t support Ron Paul and none of them have anything to do with his looks or age.

some reasons I don’t support Ron Paul

1. Foreign policy – I supported going into Afghanistan and support preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Our nation was attacked and Americans murdered. I think W was too politically correct and too lenient in his response. I also think the terrorists at Club Gitmo should have no rights whatsoever in regard to their religious beliefs.. Torture is not water-boarding. I support Israel 110% and have issues with Dr. Paul’s views on Israel.

I’ll answer them by number, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on my rebuttals.

1. Did you support going to war with Iraq? It was the one secular government in the region, yet we say how dangerous these theocratic governments are. We took out the one secular government. The nation was attacked by whom? Were they members of Al Qaeda? If so, we funded, trained and armed them – why aren’t we at war with Al Qaeda instead of terrorism? It is impossible to be at war with a tactic – and yet, we continue to wage our War on Terror.

As far as torture goes, remember, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We have the opportunity to be the a “shining city on a hill” with regard to recognizing the sanctity of all human life – even the lives of our enemies. As Christ said, love your enemy as yourself. If you’ve never been water boarded, you can’t claim its not torture – I’ll submit that the few times I have been pulled into the undertow and briefly felt the sensation of drowning makes me fully recognize sustained near-drowning as torture. For such a religious group, we certainly forget those teachings when it comes to those scary brown people.

And, Israel – why does the US support Israel so fervently? And, I’m asking because I genuinely don’t know the answer. I realize that they are an ally and that they bring democracy to the region, but why do we ask a sovereign nation to tell us what they are going to do militarily? If I were Israel, I would want to be free of big brother looking over my shoulder.

2. I disagree with him here, but I’m intelligent enough to understand why he and others might believe that it was known beforehand. The coincidences are many, and it did give the government carte blanche access to degrade our personal liberty and chase the brown boogeymen across the middle east. It is conceivable that the highest levels of government and business, recognizing that war always brings about short term economic growth, concocted this plan. Push a button or two here, pull some string there, and you have the greatest cover up in the history of America. That said, I’ll completely contradict myself now, and say that I think there would be too many loose ends to pull something like that off. Notice, I’m not saying they wouldn’t want to do it – I’m saying I don’t think they could pull it off. Our actions in the Middle East from helping to overthrow the ayatollah in 1953, installing Saddam, training and arming Al Qaeda, and building bases all around Iran have not earned us any friends. Interventionism rarely does.

3. You don’t support him for comments made 30 years ago POSSIBLY by him. Do you also condemn Newt for his comments last year or Rick for his comments this year? They both demonstrated bigotry recently. You can’t say the same for Dr. Paul.

4. It has been proven (read: not my opinion, but fact) that decriminalizing drugs and treating the psychosis that causes drug addiction is infinitely more successful at reducing drug dependence. In addition, it would create an additional tax revenue for the government, since it can be a sin tax like cigarettes and alcohol. For a case and point, check out what has happened in Portugal in the last 12 years.

I’ve put up some fairly good counterpoints – do you still hold the same opinion? If so, why?

Also, my first comment asked another very important question: why do you support Rand but not Ron? What do you think is so different about them?

I agree with Debbie’s points and let me add some of own on your questions.

I supported going to war with Iraq, but not for the reasons you might think. They tried to kill a former US President. They would not allow UN nuclear inspectors to see if they were developing WMD’s. It doesn’t matter to me if they had them or not; they wanted us to think they had them. That’s sort of akin to someone robbing you with an unloaded gun. One of the Bush doctrines stated that you are either with us or against us in rooting out and killing terrorists. Iraq supported terrorists and we should not have allowed them any safe haven. By they way, war was approved by congress, regardless of what Congressman Paul says. My biggest issue is that we didn’t take 10% off the top of future Iraqi oil sales to pay for the war.

You admit Ron Paul is a nut job in regards to storm front supporting him and his refusal to disavow said support.

Paul would be OK with Anwar al-Awlaki and OBL still walking and talking.

Newt DID NOT espouse bigotry, and I’m not sure what you are referring to with Sen. Santorum. Even if they did, their wrongs would not make his wrong a right. Newt talking about food stamps does not mean he is talking about race. Prove to us that Newt is wrong on this issue. You can’t.

If you want to legalize drugs, you have a better chance with the Dems. Go bug them for a while.

Debbie, OK, so you explained–sort of–YOUR foreign policy. NTJ was asking both here & on the other Ron Paul thread, “what is it that you disagree with [Ron Paul] on in regards to foreign policy?” If you can, please actually state Paul’s foreign policy & of course, why you disagree.

And, please clarify “Torture is not water-boarding.” You didn’t mean “tortoises are not water-boarding,” did you? Sometimes I crack myself up.

Anyone that I’ve talked to pledges support for the GA Primary winner Newt. When it hits 2nd round and Newt does not have above 35% (I believe that to be the number) then the delegates are no longer bound to Newt. They will have to wait for further instructions from the Party Leaders on who to vote for next. Question is. Has everyone cooled off from the 08 scenario yet? Some of these wounds are unhealed.

If I were a delegate, Sue couldn’t tell me how to vote. She could, but I’d ignore her unless it was close to what I would do anyway. Most of the people who will be elected will be party leaders and not waiting on instruction from on high. Now if Newt himself were to talk to the delegation, I’m sure they would at least listen to his request, whatever it may be.

I can’t put my finger on it, but it seems you’re obsessed to an unhealthy degree with an all or nothing support of one mortal politician. There is much to like about Ron Paul, but politics should be about devotion to certain ideas and public policies in general – and not just one individual. You have to find some way to promote your agenda within the wider party without being seen as something of a cult fellowship.

I couldn’t agree with you more, Harry. I’ve witnessed this same unhealthy obsession in people who are so party-loyal that they actually ignore their “devotion to certain ideas and public policies in general.” Well, except whenever it suits their purpose to use their religiosity to impress constituents about how devoted they are to those principles. But, eventually, pragmatism overrules principles, compromise trumps principles, being a team player eclipses principles–b/c, for some people, politics is the exception to principles. Interesting how even the most outspoken zealots compartmentalize their faith/principles/“certain ideas” when it’s inconvenient to actually apply them—like when they have to choose between their “devotion to certain ideas” & their commitment to a political party. I could just pinch those wishy-washy principle-pushers.

And, you’re right, that is like “something of a cult fellowship.”

BTW, are principles really principles if you don’t actually live them?

The tea party has been advocating Constitutionally limited goverment and fiscal responsibility for over 3 years so we have advanced those ideas. The debate in D.C. has gone from how much do we have to spend to how much can we cut?

“Paul’s advisers bristle at suggestions that the libertarian icon is in league the GOP frontrunner. They say Paul still has a shot at the nomination if he can hold Romney beneath the delegate threshold until Tampa and then force a floor fight that sends delegates fleeing to Paul on a secondary ballot. This may be the company line, but the scenario is improbable enough that even Paul has conceded his “chances are slim.”

I’m not sure where you got that I dislike both Paul and Santorum. Personally, I like Paul (both Ron and Rand), which is why I said I might reconsider voting for Romney if a Paul was chosen as a VP option. Overall, I don’t like Romney’s political past as governor, which is why I’m not even sure if a Paul VP spot would make him appealing enough that I could hold my nose and vote. That said, in the case of Santorum, I flatly refuse to vote for him mostly because of his extreme social policy beliefs and his dislike of the sciences.

Santorum as VP would drag the ticket down. He has made far too many statements that would be used by Obama and company and Santorum would not excite tea party activists. Tea party activists would not be excited by Romney as GOP nominee but Romney could excite tea party activists by choosing the right VP nominee. I doubt Santorum would carry Pennsylvania. Romney could pick other strong social conservatives that would add value to the ticket. Marco Rubio, Alan West and Rand Paul would excite social conservatives and tea party activists. They would all bring value to the ticket. Rubio, additionally would bring in Florida and the Hispanic vote. West would bring in military, Florida and some African American voters. Rand Paul would bring the very motivated and excited Ron Paul voters into the fold.

When Ron Paul supporters pull stunts like this, it really hurts your cause. You cannot claim in this case it was new people that were just trying to find out the truth about the convention process. Brian Laurens has been to quite a number of county conventions and has been active within the GOP for years. He knew what the procedures were.

If nothing else, I can say Brain Laurens is not a cult member. He MAY support Paul, but he’s worked for many candidates. I talked to him to see how his convention went and he failed to tell me about this. The last time I checked, he is the First Vice-Chairman of the Cherokee GOP.

This isolated incident plus the numerous times Ron Paul supporters have been called cult members on PP are conclusive proof that those Paulites just cause trouble everywhere they go. Here’s a quote from that article:

“Marinko [serving as the sergeant-at-arms] said Cherokee’s disruption was not as ‘monumental’ as Republican conventions in Cobb, Gwinnett, and DeKalb.”

And everyone knows how “monumental” the disruption was at the Gwinnett convention.

NEWS FLASH ****** NEWS FLASH

Correction from 3/17 Cherokee Tribune:

CLARIFICATION: Former Cherokee Republican Party Vice Chairman Brian Laurens says he is a Newt Gingrich supporter. It was stated otherwise in the March 16 edition of the Cherokee Tribune. Also, after Laurens was removed from the county convention last Saturday by the Sergeants-at-Arms and was questioned by police, he later was allowed to return to the GOP meeting. Ron Paul supporters challenged parliamentary procedures and not delegates at the local convention.

Debbie, “it really hurts your cause” when you bring up a self-serving tidbit of info without double-checking its veracity & then wag your self-righteous finger at your intended targets. You know that this “stunt” isn’t characteristic of all/most/many of the members of ANY subset of the GOP. To put this in a larger perspective (beyond your myopic thinking), imagine this same story being discussed on a Democratic forum. Let’s see how it might read:

And, 1 more thing. What are the chances that if Brian Laurens had been a Ron Paul supporter he would have been allowed to return to the convention? Lucky for Brian that he wasn’t 1 of those rabble-rousing cult members. Or is he?

Yeah, right…depending on whether or not the establishment held the reins of leadership. We can speculate & disagree on what ifs, but considering the recent caucuses where establishment “stunts,” to use Debbie’s term, took place, you can’t say with any certainty that a Ron Paul supporter removed from a convention would have a “very good” chance of being reinstated. Consider the following incident which occurred at the Gwinnett County Convention on 3/10.

During the process of chairman nominations, Mike Beaudreau was nominated to succeed Bruce LeVell. Following that, a Ron Paul supporter on about the 10th row center stood up & loudly & repeatedly made another nomination. LeVell & Beaudreau, both standing on the podium, never acknowledged him. Neither Bruce nor the parliamentarian asked the convention if there were other nominations. Neither Bruce nor the parliamentarian announced that nominations were closed. Nevertheless, Bruce took a vote for Mike, the only recognized nominee, announced Mike’s win, & stepped away from the lectern. Mike then assumed Bruce’s position there. The guy trying to make the nomination sat down.

When it became evident that no one in leadership was going to respond to this guy, a woman sitting close to him tried to encourage him to stand back up & try again. I was seated near the guy & heard him say, “Never mind. They’re just going to continue ignoring me.” The woman stood up insisting to be heard by Mike & said, pointing to the guy, “This man tried repeatedly to make a nomination before the nominations were closed & you repeatedly ignored him.” She continued with something like, “He has the same right as any person in this room to nominate.” Applause erupted, & Mike & the parliamentarian huddled for a private discussion on the stage. The parliamentarian came to the mic & announced that they would accept further nominations. This was clearly a case of establishment leadership choosing to do the right thing only b/c they were publicly challenged. It was also clearly a case of establishment leadership not following RRO.

So, let’s just say that in Gwinnett County, any Pauler removed from the convention would have had zero chance of being allowed to return. I’m sure you’re aware of all the other conventions where unethical means were used against various candidates’ supporters. Do you still say “very good” chance?

“SOME of us know how to answer a question when asked.”

Well, you’ve certainly been beyond generous with your answers, but my idea of “how to answer a question” is to answer it with facts. Your opinions are NOT facts. Your condescending remarks are NOT facts. But, perhaps you can answer the questions Debbie hasn’t answered about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. No, no, Doug, don’t start trolling her about not answering this 1 question like you’ve been doing to me. It’s OK. Sometimes people just don’t know the answer to questions. You said in another post that you agree with Debbie’s points, even tho’ she didn’t state a single concept of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. So, can you help her out since you “know how to answer a question when asked”?

I don’t care why you brought up Gwinnett county. I watched that entire convention video. You got some of the facts wrong, but that’s OK. You are giving us an abbreviated version. If you watch the entire video, everything was worked out to everyone’s satisfaction.

Your question was: What are the chances that if Brian Laurens had been a Ron Paul supporter he would have been allowed to return to the convention? Well, for one thing we are dealing with Cherokee County and not all counties are exactly alike. I know Brian Laurens. I know Pete Costello. I know plenty of other people in the Cherokee County GOP. I’ve been in conventions with both Pete and Brian many times before. Knowing who the Chairman of a convention is and how he would act gives me plausible room to speculate on what he would do. To rephrase, I don’t think you don’t know who (and therefore what) you are talking about. I do.

I’ll ask the question again because you have trouble answering simple question with even a yes or no answer. “Have you ever even met Brian Laurens?”

I will answer any question under the sun you wish to ask once you answer two questions for me. Have you ever even met Brian Laurens? Can you tell us your opinion on Ron Paul making money off of racist comments?

By the way, I looked under my bed. I don’t have a doppelganger. I do know Brian Laurens. Brian Laurens is not my dopelganger. He’s taller than I am.

Thinking about it, satisfaction might be a stretch. Satisfaction while still following the GOP rules might be more appropriate.

“but my idea of “how to answer a question” is to answer it with facts.” Your idea… equals …your opinion? I didn’t see a rule book stating that only facts are admissible as answers to a question. Please show us with a fact that your opinion is correct…haha.

I’m an optimist, but even I realize the likelihood of Dr. Paul winning the nomination or presidency is slim – he’s admitted as much. What you’re not getting (reading comprehension impairment issue, Doug?) is that his ideas are what’s really important. He’s given a voice to people previously disenfranchised with the whole political process – to them, the Dems are just welfarists, and the GOP is just warists. To them, both are statists and are closer to totalitarianism than liberty and freedom.

They had nowhere to go – then along comes Ron Paul, a Republican! Now, they have a party and want to get involved! But, wait, the party doesn’t want them. But, you should.

Have you read the GOP positions on the issues? (They’re here if you haven’t http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/ ) The GOP would not have to change its position on any of these issues to accept Ron Paul and his supporters. For your sake, I’ll take them one by one directly from the GOP website. And, since I have a feeling you’ve already closed yourself off, I’m doing this for everyone else’s – though, please comment if you feel so inclined.

Looking through these positions – I’d say that the other candidates are further from being in agreement with the GOP than Dr. Paul. See for yourself.

National Defense
Peace through strength, indeed – let’s not forget the former. Being the only former military left, Dr. Paul understands the need for the strongest and most capable military on the planet. A military so formidable only a fool would challenge it. With floating battle groups scattered in every sea ready to pounce at a moment’s notice, Dr. Paul would do more to improve the military than any other candidate – maybe, that is why they donate to his campaign 5 times more money than any of the other candidates. The troops that we support so fervently support Ron Paul. “A robust defense against nuclear proliferation…” Notice it doesn’t say a robust offense. “that would lead to greater peace and stability.” They talk about peace a good deal, but they don’t seem to interested in being peaceful. “Joining with other democracies to protect our vital national interests.” Having a communist loan shark certainly doesn’t protect our national interests.

Like it or not the GOP has become the WAR Party in the minds of Dems and Independents. You’ll say the wars were necessary, and I’d say you’re delusional, and neither of us would grow. But, you must recognize that we would be stronger under Dr. Paul’s plan – not weaker. He is stronger on National Defense than any other candidate. You’ve mistakenly classified International Offense as National Defense, which is why you’ll likely disagree with me here.

Healthcare
I think we’re all in agreement here, but I don’t think the GOP position goes far enough in removing some of the unnecessary burdens on both physician and insurance company.

Energy
Again, we’re in agreement. But, again, the GOP has an opportunity to take a stand against over regulation and doesn’t.

Education
You may be thinking you got us here, but read it carefully. There is no mention that schools must be government run indoctrination centers. When Horace Mann developed the public school system in Massachusetts, he said it would all but end crime. Karl Marx knew full well that to control the public the government must “educate” the public. As our lagging scores show, it is time for a change in method, not principle.

Economy
Dr. Paul upholds the GOP position more than anyone – here’s why. “We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations that promote confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs, and businesses alike.” Massive deficits are not sensible. Artificial manipulation of interest prices is not sensible. Having a piece of paper money that loses value over time because it is not backed by a mineral and can be printed when the government needs more of it is not sensible. Allowing lobbyists to influence policy is not sensible. Bailouts are not sensible. Subsidies are not sensible. “We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.” Maybe the GOP opposes it, but the GOP hasn’t held its elected representatives to the same standard. Picking winners and losers is exactly what the other candidates have done and will continue to do.

I defy you to tell me Dr. Paul doesn’t uphold these principles better than any other candidate.

Courts
We agree on this, as well, but I’d like to point out a phrase. “Should demonstrate fidelity to the US Constitution.” Yes, they and every other elected official. The GOP says the Constitution is the rule and guide, yet none of the other candidates really seem to care about it.

So, since you’re more concerned with issues than mudslinging, I hope you’ll see that we and Dr. Paul are actually more in line with the Republican party than you and your candidates are. The positions do not direct methods – they merely lay guidelines and groundwork. The candidate that best upholds those guidelines is Dr. Paul.

After seeing the videos out there of the Athens-Clarke County GOP convention, I have to say, the A-CC GOP could have handled that so much better (caught on camera no less). Instead they have gone made Georgia look bad.

I’m not sure they actually elected any delegates. Watching the video it looks like they approved the report of the nominating committee then adjourned. Approving the committee report does not elect anyone. After approving the report the floor should have been open to nominations. Even if there was a rule against nominations from the floor, then they would still have to say that those on the slate were the only nominees and would still have to take a vote to elect. If the vote did not receive a majority, then they would have to have openned the floor for nominations or adjourned the convention without electing anyone.

However, since I do not know what happened in the few minutes before the video starts, I can’t make a full assessment or judgment call.

This concerns me. I’d like to see the full unedited video and see the minutes, look at voting strength and so on before making a final call. I don’t care for what I’ve seen. I am about playing by the rules and it doesn’t look like things happened they way that they should have. This will be talked about.

I am for a strong national defense. I don’t automatically agree with anyone on anything. Show me fifty generals who support closing bases and going just to naval ships and I’ll consider it. I doubt this idea has much support in the military. Have you never heard that the best defense is a good offence? It is our ability to hit and hit hard that other nations who would do us harm worry about. They aren’t concerned with patriot missiles who shoot other missiles from the sky. What they check is our willingness to use our power. Congressman Paul, for the most part, is an isolationist. We don’t need a Neville Chamberlain. Personally, I don’t want to bomb any other nation unless we have to. I’d be OK with being told that we had to regarding Iran. Time will tell.

I think we will agree that Obamacare needs to go. I like the idea of health savings accounts.

Energy, drill baby drill. Anwar, off the coasts, and in the gulf. Build that Pipeline and an oil refinery to go with it. And if Iran wants to blockade the straits of Hormuz, sink those ships.

Education, I’m OK with bulldozing the Federal Department of Education. Leave it to the states.

Economy, I don’t agree that we have to have a mineral or gold standard. Other than that, I lean toward being a laissez faire type of guy. Some regulations are needed, but not nearly at the levels we have now.

As I said before, I doubt we have much to disagree with on many issues, but Congressman Paul’s foreign policy, or lack thereof, is horrible. I’m not going through all of the issues to justify my candidate. That’s what cult members do. I’ve already voted. Now I’m looking to elect some delegates who have earned their way to the national convention and not a bunch of Johnny come lately’s.

I will be voting for the GOP nominee regardless of whom may be running as a third party candidate. Can you say the same? ( I don’t care about links of opinion, I care about actual facts.) Let me know when Ron Paul breaks 10% of the delegates.

nicholastjohnson,

Are you a Republican that will promote it’s platform and it’s nominees regardless of whom else may be running? If not, that makes you a rino.

I will only support the nominee, if the nominee will uphold these principles. That is a guarantee, Doug. Reread those principles, and honestly say that they all measure up to those goals. Can you do it with a straight face?

You don’t understand that the nominee basically gets to write the platform and have their ideas put into it. The nominee will usually measure up to his or her own ideas. You have much to learn, my young jedi.

I will only support the nominee, if the nominee will uphold these principles. That is a guarantee, Doug. Reread those principles, and honestly say that they all measure up to those goals. Can you do it with a straight face?

Well, I’ve read them. I agree that most of it reflects a simplified GOP Platform. Under Defense, there is a section about mainataining a robust defence against nuclear proliferation. (I know of one candidate who fails in this area. He understands why Iran would want a nuke.) Under Economy, there is nothing about going to a gold standard. Under Education, there is nothing about eleminating the Department of Education and giving control of it back to the states (I agree that we should.) Actually Congressman Paul says the federal government has absolutely no role in education, and that is NOT what these issues state. Out of six issues, Congressman Paul seems to more out of line with them than any other GOP candidate. Are you sure you want to use this as your standard?

You will support a candidate only if they uphold these issues? “That is a guarantee, Doug?”

I agree with most of these issues and on the ones I don’t agree with, I agree with Congressman Paul. However, if the only issue I disagreed with Congressman Paul was on his allowance of nuclear proliferation, he wouldn’t get my vote because of that one issue, provided that there were other viable candidates available.

By the way, my face is straight. My head is not tilted to one side. Thanks for asking.

“Under Defense, there is a section about mainataining a robust defence against nuclear proliferation. (I know of one candidate who fails in this area. He understands why Iran would want a nuke.)”

It says “against threats arising from nuclear proliferation” – not simply “nuclear proliferation” in and of itself. Why? Because, that ship has sailed – the nukes have proliferated. You see Iran as a threat – I don’t. Maybe you’ve been brainwashed into thinking they are a threat or maybe I’ve been brainwashed into thinking they aren’t a threat – only one of us is right. What I do know is that it would mean certain annihilation should they ever decide to truly threaten us – despite the petulant brat who is the 14th most important person in the country, the ayatollah hasn’t made any overt threats against us. If it weren’t so horrendous it would be humorous, that we’re supposedly spreading peace and democracy with bullets and bombs. I hope the irony isn’t lost on you.

“Under Economy, there is nothing about going to a gold standard.”

His position is that he would “legalize sound money” – not return us to a gold standard. The gold standard is probably the best solution, but it isn’t practical to do it immediately. What he can do immediately is legalize gold and silver as legal tender. What were your thoughts on the last line – “We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.”? Does Newt, Mitt or Rick live up to that creed?

“Under Education, there is nothing about eleminating the Department of Education and giving control of it back to the states (I agree that we should.) Actually Congressman Paul says the federal government has absolutely no role in education, and that is NOT what these issues state. ”

In all of the position statements, the exact method isn’t outlined – just the principle itself, so I’m not sure how to respond to you here. Just as the position statement doesn’t explicitly say that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in education, it also doesn’t state that it should be. By the way, it isn’t Paul saying that the federal government has no role in education, it is the Constitution saying that. If you disagree, take it up with the Constitution, not Dr. Paul.

“Out of six issues, Congressman Paul seems to more out of line with them than any other GOP candidate. Are you sure you want to use this as your standard?”

Again, I say, there’s no way you can tell me the other three candidates are more closely aligned with these issues. And, if you do, I’ll call you an ostrich – out of love, of course. I hope this little exercise has shown you that we’re closer to aligning than you give us (and Dr. Paul) credit for – you’re arguing with the wrong people, Master Obi Wan.

In 2008, the last time the GOP platform was written the GOP took a hard stance against nuclear proliferation. The name of that section is “Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation.” Your issues page restated that. If you think that that particular ship has already sailed, that every county that wants a nuke has one, I’ll bet you that Ron Paul will be get the GOP nomination….on the first ballot at the GOP convention.

Ron Paul does not want to return us to the gold standard?
Will you believe him when he says so himself? Is there anything else you would like to know about your candidate that you are wrong on?

What part of “it only takes him to be incredibly bad on ONE issue for him not to get my support,” don’t you understand? Even if I agreed with him 99%, he still would not have received my vote if there were any viable candidates out there with a better stance on the that issue. I counted 3 with better stances.

Still floating like a butterfly around the issues; alas, your stings are more like fleas than bees.

I’m tempted to just copy what I wrote and paste it here as a reply, but you’ll probably dance around it again. I’m not making up what the GOP issues page says – its there – it says “threats”. Oh, and I didn’t say that every country that wants a nuke has one – what I meant was that there are plenty of very dangerous countries that already have them. Countries more dangerous than your Iranian boogeyman. And, I said the gold standard was the best solution, and I agree that Dr. Paul wants to return to it. However, he understands the difficulties involved in doing that, so in his position statement, he simply wants to focus this election on making gold and silver legal tender.

It is frightening how pro-war some in our party have become – spreading peace and democracy with bullets and bombs. Doug, are you former military? Did you know that Dr. Paul receives 5 times more money in donations from active military than any other candidate?

PLEASE tell me you are not that dumb. So exactly when should we stop being concerned about nuclear proliferation? Share with us your vast knowledge. Please list all of these plenty of very dangerous countries that already have them. I’ll be impressed if you can do it without searching on the internet. Once you look at who they are, tell me what we have had to do about them. Do you know about 13 days in October? (Hint, it wasn’t last year.) We almost went to war then because of one of the countries that were on that list. Granted, it’s composition has changed and during the break up, there are now even more countries with Nukes.

I don’t care if Congressman Paul receives five time the amount of money than any other GOP candidates than dentists. That doesn’t mean he knows how to do a root canal.

You said “His position is that he would “legalize sound money” – not return us to a gold standard.” I just heard him say that we want gold because over 6,000 years, gold has always been picked over paper. If someone were to wire you 6,000 of imaginary money into your account, would you spend it or claim it didn’t exist? Could you pay your mortgage with it by writing a check? Could you buy groceries with a debit card? If you have any excess zero’s and one’s that a computer will tell us worth money and you don’t want it, send me a check. I will deposit it. I’m not going to living in a cave, trading pelts with the caveman next door because Congressman Paul doesn’t like our financial system.

Yours is an interesting perspective to be sure, Doug. But, I can’t help but feeling that somewhere along the line you’ve been wronged in some way by a RP cultist or RP himself. Did something happen that has caused you to be this way towards RP and his supporters?

I hope to meet you some day, Doug – you’ll see that I’m just as nice and genuine a person as you’ll ever meet. I’m not the devil incarnate, I’m no cultist, I’m just a regular guy who wants to see a bright and prosperous future for my children. In my opinion, Dr. Paul has the only real plan to get us there; I’m sorry that my opinions cause you so much consternation.

Found something online that you probably won’t find in the mainstream media. This is what you want to take to Iran, right?

________________
The victims became a footnote, an anonymous footnote. Just the number 16. No one bothered to ask their ages, their hobbies, their aspirations. Worst of all, no one bothered to ask their names.

Real people with families and lives…not evil entities killed in a video game.

When we invade countries and bomb their cities…who pays the biggest price? And I hear over and over, “At least they [the invasions] are keeping us safe.”
________________

If we’re spending $2Billion per week on the war effort, someone else is earning $2Billion per week. They have the motive and resources to ensure the gravy train continues for their pockets.

I’m glad you can justify these wars in your mind, but I can’t. Let us pray that there isn’t a bigger superpower in our lifetimes or, perhaps more poignantly, in our children and grandchildren’s lifetimes.

We went into Afghanistan because they were hiding Osama Bin Ladin. Ron Paul would not have gone in and would have been fine to leave Bin Ladin alive. It is a shame of what happened in the story you cited, but there is a cause for the phrase “war is hell.”

Here is a list of names for you to read…the list seems short to me, but you should get the idea.

I don’t WANT to go to war with anyone, but occasionally there is a need. If Iran backed off getting a nuke, I’d leave them alone until the crossed a border to attack an ally of ours. I gave you a name earlier and compared Congressman Paul to him. Do you know who Neville Chamberlain was? Do you really think that there are countries out there who would not do us harm if we did not show the willingness to defend ourselves?

“Ron Paul would not have gone in and would have been fine to leave Bin Ladin alive.”

You mean the guy we partnered with to fund, arm and train to defeat the Russians? You mean the guy who was more worried about his bank account and porn collection than on orchestrating an attack on this country when he was found? It doesn’t take an army of 100,000 10 years to find one man – it could take a few spies a couple of months to find him, but that doesn’t help our big business war contractor buddies.

“It is a shame of what happened in the story you cited, but there is a cause for the phrase “war is hell.””

That may be the most callous thing that I’ve seen you write to date, but I understand where it comes from. They’ve conditioned us to hate the brown people over there for their differences – it doesn’t serve the government’s purpose to humanize them. I hope you’re just being flippant with me and don’t actually feel this way.

The 9 children in that home weren’t alive when those people were killed, and they aren’t alive today, either. The “collateral damage” is getting out of control, and who knows what the “blowback” will be in another 10 to 20 years. When we are attacked, we must defend ourselves, and on that fateful day in September, we were most definitely attacked. We should have defended ourselves swiftly and thoroughly, but we didn’t. We decided to go to war with a tactic – terrorism – instead of a people, thereby ensuring that it would be impossible to win.

“I don’t WANT to go to war with anyone, but occasionally there is a need. If Iran backed off getting a nuke, I’d leave them alone until the crossed a border to attack an ally of ours.”

I hope that is true, but your comments in this post suggest something different. If Iran had 10 nukes tomorrow it wouldn’t change anything. They still wouldn’t use one – it would only mean certain demise, if they did. Despite the fact that we’ve been conditioned to think of them as animals, they are actually humans… with brains.

“I gave you a name earlier and compared Congressman Paul to him. Do you know who Neville Chamberlain was? Do you really think that there are countries out there who would not do us harm if we did not show the willingness to defend ourselves?”

You should learn the difference between the words “defense” and “offense”. Dr. Paul has stated that he would defend this country with his dying breath – because he doesn’t want to go around starting preventative wars or precautionary wars or whatever you want to call them, does not mean he will not defend this country.

1.) Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

2.) Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”. Before you start, chemical weapons against Iran and Kurds are well documented.

3.) Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

4.) Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

5. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

6.) The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

7.) It passed the house 297, to 133 and it passed the senate 77 to 23. That’s almost 3 to 1, across party lines. President Bush did not start a war without congressional approval. Three quaters of congress helped.

If you questions are: “are they still?” and “why are we still there?,” then you don’t disagree that we should have had a military conflict, you just question the length of the engagement?

Yes, I mean, Osama Bin Ladin. He could have been hero of the decade while fighting Soviets in the 80‘s, but that doesn’t mean we like what he did since then. Next question?

Bad things happen in wars. One guy snapping is just as bad as a bomb going off course. There will be casualties. That’s why war should be a last resort. I didn’t come up with the phrase “war is hell.” You can thank that General Sherman guy. He only burned down Atlanta and I didn’t care for that either.

I don’t see your point in citing anyone’s skin color. I don’t care about the color of whomever the United States may have an issue with. They might be brown, red, black, white, green…..it doesn’t matter to me. Maybe you have been reading too many newsletters.

The WTC was bombed in 1993. The U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000. We have had embassies bombed and I’m not even talking about cyber attacks. There have been plenty of times the U.S. could have been more aggressive in it’s defense. Had we done so, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened?

“If Iran had 10 nukes tomorrow it wouldn’t change anything.” I’m not willing to bet my life or the safety of my country on that statement. My comments in this post suggest nothing different from what they are. How you decide to read them is up to you.

1-3, stuff from H.W. Bush’s term (not to mention, no new W.M.D’s were ever found)
4. You should instead be looking at the motivation for the suicide bombers.
5. Al Queada wasn’t in Iraq until after we attacked Iraq.
6. I had no idea that you think the US should take orders from the UN. Sounds like something I’d expect to hear from a Democrat.
7. A statement of Congressional approval is not the same as a Declaration of War. As such, under the US Constitution, it was an illegal act of war.

I had a long response written, in which I point out the logical fallacy of many of your points. However, the conversation is probably over.

Your snide remarks belie an inability to fully explain your position in the face of mounting evidence against your point of view. Since the conversation has devolved with you avoiding points and slinging insults, I’m going to graciously bow out. It has been an enlightening conversation, but I’ll be moving on from PP now. Take care, Doug.

1-3, started in H W Bush’s term but were being violated up until the week before we said “enough.” President Clinton let the situation fester. The old W.M.D.’s weren’t enough?

4. I don’t buy into the concept of hate crimes. Killing people is killing people. I don’t care why they did it unless it was to preserve their own life. Strapping a bomb on and walking into a market isn’t something one HAS to do. If you want to support terrorists, you can, up until the point where you pick up arms against the U.S.

5. I did not say anything about Al Queada. Iraq was supporting terrorists.

6. Having the UN on board is not the same thing as seeking their approval before we acted. It helped politically to show that we had exhausted every opportunity to avoid war and the UN couldn’t resolve it any better than we could.

7. When you get to congress, you can decide the difference between authorizing a military use of force and a declaration of war. You have your opinion and I have mine. Most members of congress at that time and since then don’t think we violated the constitution.

I have enjoyed our exchanges. I think I am answering almost every point with facts an not opinions, you just refuse to recognize them.

For example:

If you questions are: “are they still?” and “why are we still there?,” then you don’t disagree that we should have had a military conflict, you just question the length of the engagement?

I would think light of the previous quote, this would apply to you more so than it would myself “an inability to fully explain your position in the face of mounting evidence against your point of view.”

I’d like to see you shed your cult robes and support the GOP”s platform and it’s nominee. If you are going to take your ball and go home, so be it.

If it was going on all the way back to HW and Clinton, are you really going to act like it was a pressing matter?

We were told that Iraq was producing new WMD’s none were found. Just old and known buried stockpiles.

Going back to that point 4, you mentioned “killing people is killing people”, well, they kill us, we kill them and vice versa. Believe it or not, this mindset does happen and your earlier bringing up of them attacking us proves it (at least in your case).

5. I initially brought up that you couldn’t use the bin laden connection in regards to Iraq. This was me referring again to this issue which you

6. The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42), not with individual nations.

7. Wow, my head hurts from your last sentence. What reason would they have to say anything otherwise? Why would the same people that voted in favor of it want to push legislation that would make themselves look bad or hold themselves liable?

Really, this discussion should be in another thread, not to mention, I’m tired of scrolling up and down 2 pages at a time to reference comments. Not to mention the discussion is going nowhere, neither of us will be changing our opinions. If you feel you must have the last word, then go ahead, I’m done with this thread.

Well since you bought up that video, I am posting what I see in screenshots taken in the comment section . It is Ron Paul supporters threatening violence. someone sent me these screenshots before they reported them to law enforcement. Most Ron Paul supporters are not disruptive and just want to advance their ideas and want to defeat Obama and take our nation back to its founding principles. There is an element that are dangerous anarchists that give the rest of Paul supporters a bad name. I was even sent a link to a video called Battle of Athens that is an attempt of intimidation by some Ron Paul supporters. Really, is that the best you can do? Guess what? It ain’t going to work..

MrMoBidnizz wrote, ” Someone needs to kill that old man. Put him out of his misery. Bathe in his blood and take solace in his demise.”

poopsy713 writes, ” At what point is it appropriate to start punching people in the face and burning their houses down?”

Hujulism wrties, ” They are taking peoples right to vote and should be FU**ing SHOT !

christianmalazarte writes, ” If ever there’s a revolution. I’m going to kill them first. Even if they have a change of heart and decide to support Ron Paul, I will still kill them. I will never forgive and i will never forget. ”

kyliss22 writes, “burn their houses down”

skb0rzn writes, ” When these shills start “vanishing” this $hit will end.

vladimast wrties, ” SICK OF THIS FRAUD! Let all those pieces of $hit hang”

Danhall4ronpaul writes, “Should have all stood up and blocked the exits until they followed the rules.”
DanHall4RonPaul wrt

Wow. That is some sick stuff. Take solace in knowing that they are probably demented individuals banging their keyboards in their mother’s basement at 35 years old – they’d never speak to another human like that, but the internet provides a haven of anonymity.

To a point. With threats like these, I would immediately notify the local police. What the cowards don’t realize is that they can be traced with technology despite their apparent anonymity. Violence or threats of violence have no place in this debate – I’ve disagreed passionately with Doug, but I’d fight for his right to his opinion.

This is sad, but not indicative of any of the individuals I associate with in Cobb.

I would probably be near the top of the list for the crosshairs in Cobb, but except for two individuals who yelled and cussed at me immediately after the convention, I’ve had no other negative feedback from the RP folks.

While it is sad that Padgett received threats (a similar thing happened to one of my Facebook friends Jere Brower), it does not excuse what allegedly happened at he convention. If I rear end you while you are parked at a red light because I was speeding and not paying attention, my actions are not excused if you are so angered by it that you get out of your car and punch me out. I get a ticket for hitting your car and you go to jail for punching me.

Nicholastjohnson, thank you for those statements… I do think that most Ron Paul supporters are like you- passionate and dedicated to their core beliefs.. Your goal is not to be disruptive but to be treated fairly..

No way I’m going to read all the stupidity on here (and I know there is plenty of it) but…

“Man, you really have no idea what’s coming in the next few years, do you?”

Yes I do. Paultards will continue to be marginalized, they will talk of a future in which they have seized control from the elites, all while moaning and whining that they are being kept out of power, either intentionally or by design of the institutions running the show.